Livestock Research for Rural Development 16 (11) 2004

Citation of this paper

Evaluation of compound broiler feeds manufactured in Bangladesh

B C Roy, H Ranvig*, S D Chowdhury**, M M Rashid and A Chwalibog*

Department of Livestock Services, Krishi Khamar Sharak, Farmgate, Dhaka, Bangladesh
bibekroy@hotmail.com
*Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark
**Department of Poultry Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh


Abstract

To get an exact picture of compound (pellet) broiler feeds manufactured in Bangladesh, feed samples were collected from the sales and display centers of six feed mills. Three methods were used to evaluate the feed: Visual observation, chemical analysis and a feeding trial with 390 broilers using broiler starter, grower and finisher feeds.

There were significant differences  in nutrient concentrations, and in growth and feed conversion of the broilers,  among the feeds obtained from the six feed mills.   These traits appeared to be related to the weighted crude protein of the feeds but not to the fibre level nor the content of lysine or the methionine/lysine ratio.

The crude protein content of commercial feeds would appear to be the best criterion of their value for supporting growth and feed conversion in intensively managed broilers.

Key words: Bioassay, broilers, chemical analysis, compound feeds, conversion, feed mills, growth


Introduction

It is generally agreed that feed represents the major cost of the poultry production. According to McNab (1999) this cost lies between 65 and 75%. So, any improvement in the performance of broilers and layers due to their diet can inevitably have a profound effect on profitability. Seasonal availability of locally produced feed ingredients together with variations in quality of some ingredients have made the feed situation in Bangladesh unsatisfactory from the quality standpoint. Inadequate feed analytical services as well as lack of statutory control over feed quality have further aggravated the situation. The number of feed mills is increasing rapidly throughout the country to meet the high demand. It was reported in 1999 that there were 40 feed mills with 900 dealers within the private sector that were producing and distributing poultry feed all over the country (Latif 1999).

Few of the feed mills are serious in maintaining the quality of products.  On the other hand, farmers do not have access to adequate facilities to analyze and monitor the quality of the commercial feeds. In view of the limited availability and varying sources of different feed ingredients, the level of nutrients in the prepared feeds may differ from what is actually required. In view of the above situation, the present study was undertaken to ascertain the variations in the nutrient status of compound broiler feeds collected from six different feed mills located in Bangladesh and to compare the quality of the feeds based on the performance of broilers.


Materials and methods

Location and objectives

The experiment was conducted at Bangladesh Agricultural University Poultry Farm, at Mymensingh. The objective was to evaluate the compound broiler feeds based on visual observations, chemical analyses and feeding trials with broilers.

Selection of feed samples

Out of 40 feed mills engaged in production and marketing of poultry feeds, six were selected randomly (Tab le 1), and considered as the experimental  treatments.

Table 1. Location of randomly selected feed mills
Treatments

Name and address
AF

Aftab Feed Limited, Koliachar, Bazitpur, Kishoregonj
QF

Quality Feed Limited ,Shirirchala, Bagher Bazar, Gazipur
PF

Paragon Feed Limited, Baniarchala, Bhabanipur, Gazipur
NF

Nourish Feed Limited, Gusinga, Sreepur, Gazipur
FF

Fresh Feed Limited, Meghnaghat, Sonargaon, Narayangonj
SF

Sundarban Feed, LimitedAmbug, Zampur Sonargon, Narayangonj
Collection of feed samples

Feed samples were collected from the sales and display centers of the feed mills. At the beginning of the feeding trial, the required amounts of broiler starter feed were procured. The same procedure was followed in the procurement of grower and finisher diets.

Evaluation of the quality of compound feeds

After reception of the feeds, the following three types of tests were performed.

Visual observation

Physical characteristics (color, particle size, texture, flavor, odor, taste, presence of foreign particles, mould, fungus, insects and pests)  were observed carefully during collection of the feeds.

Chemical analysis

Proximate analysis of feeds was done according to the procedures described by AOAC (1990). Calcium and total phosphorus were determined by atomic absorption and spectrophotometry methods, respectively (FAO 1980). Amino acid profiles of feed samples were determined by HPLC method according to AOAC (1990).

Bioassay

390 Shaver Starbro day-old broiler chicks were obtained from a commercial hatchery and were randomly divided into 6 treatments representing the 6 feed mills. There were 13 birds in each of 5 replicate groups.  The experimental house was divided into 30 pens of equal size (1.4 m. x 0 .9 m.) by using bamboo materials and wire netting. The floor space was 0.097 m2/bird.  Fresh dried rice husk litter was spread on the floor of the pens at a depth of about 4 cm before placing the chicks in the pens. To maintain brooding temperature, each small pen was equipped with two 100-watt electric bulbs suspended 0.4 m above the litter.

The broiler starter diet was provided for the first 21days, followed by the grower diet from 22 to 35 days, then the  finisher diet up to marketing age. In all cases, drinking water and feeds were supplied to the birds ad-libitum throughout the experimental period. One feeder (0.60 m × 0.08 m × 0.05 m) and one round drinker with a capacity of 2.5 liters were provided in each pen. Fresh drinking water was supplied to the birds three times a day, at 6 am, 12 am and 6 pm.  Drinkers were washed and dried up daily in the morning, and feeders were cleaned weekly.

The birds were exposed to a lighting regime of 23 hours and 30 minutes. All the birds were vaccinated against Newcastle Disease, Infectious Bursal Disease and Infectious Bronchitis Disease. Dead birds were sent to the Department of Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh, for post-mortem examinations. At the end of the experiment, 4 broilers (2 males and 2 females) from each treatment with live weight close to the average of the pens were selected and slaughtered for meat yield characteristics. During the experiment, temperatures and relative humidity were recorded daily at 6 hour intervals. Strict sanitary measures were followed during the whole experimental period. Weekly body weight gain, feed consumption, feed conversion ratio were determined. Mortality was recorded.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analysis was performed using mean and standard deviation for each outcome variable. Differences between treatments were evaluated using analysis of variance (Proc GLM in SAS version 8.2). When treatments were significantly different, the Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used to separate treatment means (Steel and Torrie 1981). Assumptions for the analysis were evaluated using residuals plots and Shapiro-Wilks test for normality. A 5% significant level was used.


Results and discussion

Chemical analysis of feeds
Broiler starter feed

There were differences in the proximate composition of the feeds (Annex tables 1, 2 and 3) among samples from the different feed mill companies,  and in the performance of the broilers given these feeds (Tables 2 and 3).  Survivability did not differ between feeds from the different mills (Table 3).

Table 2.  Mean values# of live weights of broiler chicks at the end of each period of the growth trial according to source of feed

Variables

Age, days

Treatments (feed mills)

Prob.

Aftab Feed

Quality Feed

Paragon Feed

Nourish Feed

Fresh Feed

Sundarban Feed

Live weight, g/broiler

1-21

692c ± 43

728a ± 42

713ab ± 37

700bc ± 41

712ab ± 42

669d ± 70

< 0.001

22-35

905a ± 63

895ab ± 51

886ab ± 54

881b ± 66

824c ± 66

894ab ± 61

<0.001

36-38

440a ± 76

433a ± 106

411ab ± 62

400b ± 72

363c ± 86

305d ± 90

<0.001

1-38

2037ab ± 86

2057a ± 103

2010bc ± 81

1980c ± 83

1900d ± 99

1867e ± 105

<0.001

Feed consumption, g/broiler

1-21

1057 ± 12

1062 ± 12

1065 ± 24

1049 ± 18

1041 ± 9

1059±15

0.110

22-35

1782 ± 25

1800 ± 14

1786 ± 29

1789 ± 39

1790 ± 22

1782 ± 18

0.890

36-38

1146a ± 20

1119a ± 28

1104a ± 23

1100a ± 52

1004b ± 39

992b ± 58

< 0.001

1-38

3985a ± 8

3980a ± 7

3955a ± 28

3938a ± 69

3835b ± 46

3818b ± 48

< 0.001

# Values indicate mean± SD;
abc Means bearing uncommon superscripts differ at P<0.05.

Table 3. Responses of broiler chicks to feeds of different feed mills

Variables

Age, days

Treatments (feed mills)
Prob.

Aftab Feed

Quality Feed

Paragon Feed

Nourish Feed

Fresh Feed

Sundarban Feed
Feed conversion

1-21

1.53b ± 0.09

1.46d ± 0.08

1.50cd ± 0.07

1.50bc ± 0.09

1.46d ± 0.08

1.58a ± 0.16

< 0.001

22-35

1.98c ± 0.14

2.00bc ± 0.11

2.03bc ± 0.12

2.04b ± 0.15

2.18a ± 0.18

2.0bc ± 0.13

< 0.001

36-38

2.67b ± 0.43

2.80b ± 0.93

2.76b ± 0.47

2.84b ± 0.52

2.92b ± 0.73

3.51a ± 0.96

< 0.001

1-38

1.96cd ± 0.08

1.94d ± 0.10

1.97cd ± 0. 09

1.99bc ± 0.09

2.02ab ± 0.11

2.05a ± 0.10

< 0.001

Survival (%)

1-21

100 ± 0.00

100 ± 0.00

96.9 ± 6.88

98.4 ± 3.44

98.4 ± 3.44

98.4 ± 3.44

0.780

22-35

100 ± 0.00

98.4 ± 3.44

98.4 ± 3.44

98.4 ± 3.44

98.4 ± 3.44

100 ± 0.00

0.840

36-38

98.4 ± 3.44

100 ± 0.00

100 ± 0.00

100 ± 0.00

100 ± 0.00

100 ± 0.00

0.790

1-38

98.4 ± 3.44

98.4 ± 3.44

95.3 ± 10.32

96.9 ± 4.21

96.9 ± 4.21

98.4 ± 3.44

0.790

# Values indicate mean± SD;
abc Means bearing uncommon superscripts differ at P<0.05.


Discussion

The most important source of variation appeared to be the content of crude protein which was directly related to the final live weight of the birds and the feed conversion  (R² = 0.89 and 0.84) (Figures 1 and 2). Neither the crude fibre content in the feeds (Figures 3 and 4), nor the percentage lysine (Figure 5), nor the ratio of methionine to lysine (Figure 6), were related to bird performance.
Figure 1. Relationship between weighted crude protein in the feed and final live weight of the birds Figure 2. Relationship between weighted crude protein in the feed and feed conversion of the birds

 

Figure 3. Relationship between weighted crude fibre in the feed and final live weight of the birds Figure 4. Relationship between weighted crude fibre in the feed and feed conversion of the birds

 

Figure 5. Relationship between content of lysine and final live weight Figure 6. Relationship between methionine as proportion of  lysine and final live weight


Conclusion

The proximate composition of the feeds from the selected manufacturers, and the amino acid profiles, differed only slightly from NRC (1994) recommendations. Nevertheless, there were significant differences in the final live weights of the broilers fed the different feeds and in their feed conversion. These traits appeared to be related to the weighted crude protein of the feeds but not to the fibre level nor the content of lysine or the methionine/lysine ratio.

The crude protein content of commercial feeds would thus appear to be the best criterion of their value for supporting growth and feed conversion in intensively managed broilers.


Acknowledgement

The authors appreciate the provision of funding from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA)


References

AOAC 1990 Official methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, D.C.

FAO 1980 Soil Bulletin. 38/1. Soil and plant testing analysis FAO, Rome.Pp.230.

Latif  M A 1999 History of Poultry Industry in Bangladesh. Proceeding of the seminar of International Poultry Show, (1999). WPSA. Bangladesh branch. Pp. 11-17.

McNab J 1999 Advance in poultry nutrition in the world. Proceeding of the seminar and international poultry show (1999). WPSA Bangladesh branch p. 52.

NRC 1994 Nutrient requirement of poultry, National Research Council 8th revision ed. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

Steel R G D and Torrie J H 1981Principles and procedures of statistics; A biometrical approach. 2nd.Edition McGraw-Hill, Singapore.




Annex table 1. Nutrient concentrations# of broiler starter, and grower feeds from different feed mills

 

Variables

Treatments (feed mills)

P Value

Aftab Feed

Quality Feed

Paragon Feed

Nourish Feed

Fresh Feed

Sundarban Feed

Starter feed, %

 

 

 

 

 

 

DM

89.7± 0. 85

89.8± 0. 89

89.2± 0. 82

90.0± 1.09

88.9 ± 1.07

88.5±1.11

0.252

CP

23.9± 2.48

23.5±1.10

22.2± 0. 41

22.9± 1.37

21.6 ± 1.25

21.6±1.74

0.210

EE

6.70 ± 1.71

5.30± 0.78

7.10± 0. 35

5.40± 0. 93

6.10± 0.52

6.20± 2.02

0.300

CF

4.70bc ± 0. 66

6.40a ± 1.56

5.80ab ± 0. 06

3.50c ± 0. 52

5.84ab ± 0.92

5.40ab ± 0.99

0.004

Ash

8.70b ± 0. 85

9.10b ± 0.76

11.7a ± 1.0

6.50c ± 0. 70

8.40b ± 0.47

8.50 b ± 0.49

0.001

NFE

55.8bc ±3.68

55.5bc ± 3.13

53.0c ± 1.04

61.4a ± 2.22

57.9ab ±1.94

58.0ab ±1.33

0.002

Ca

1.30ab ± 0.14

1.46a ± 0. 06

1.30abc ± 0. 19

1.10c ± 0. 11

1.30abc ± 0.07

1.20bc ± 0.05

0.042

Total P

0.50 ± 0.10

0.40± 0. 27

0.50 ± 0. 05

0.50± 0. 06

0.40 ± 0.03

0.50 ± 0.02

0.296

Grower feed

 

 

 

 

 

 

DM

89.4 ± 1.47

89.5± 0.75

89.3 ± 0. 82

90.4 ± 2.17

88.7± 0. 68

88.4 ± 0.87

0.338

CP

21.0bc ± 1.01

23.2ab ± 2.46

23.7a ± 0. 13

22.6ab ± 1.88

19.2c± 0.57

19.8c ± 0.94

0.008

EE

7.80ab ± 2.27

5.40b ± 0. 84

6.80b ± 0. 98

7.30ab ± 1.98

7.70ab ± 0.97

9.40a ± 1.49

0.037

CF

5.20± 0.42

6.70± 1.41

6.40± 2.55

5.30 ± 1.41

6.10± 1.36

7.80 ± 3.29

0.425

Ash

6.80b ± 1.17

7.00b ± 2.78

9.50a ± 0.06

6.30b ± 0. 91

6.70b ± 0.87

7.50ab ± 0.59

0.041

NFE

59.1ab ± 2.82

57.6abc ± 4.81

53.3c ± 1.77

58.3ab ± 1.12

60.1a ± 0.84

55.2bc ± 4.07

0.040

Ca

1.10bc ± 0.20

1.20ab ± 0. 08

1.30a  ± 0.24

0.90c ± 0. 07

1.10bc ± 0.11

1.20ab ± 0.11

0.006

Total P

0.50± 0.05

0.50± 0. 03

0.50± 0.05

0.50 ± 0. 03

0.50  ± 0.03

0.50± 0.02

0.345

# Values indicate mean ±SD; abc Means within rows bearing uncommon superscripts differ at P<0.05.


Annex table 2. Nutrient concentrations# of broiler finisher feeds of different feed mills

Variables

Treatments (feed mills)

P Value

Aftab feed,
T1

Quality feed,
T2

Paragon feed, T3

Nourish feed,   T4

Fresh feed,
T5

Sundarban feed,  T6

DM

89.4ab ± 1. 6

89.2ab ± 1. 2

91.1a ± 1.08

90.4ab ± 1.91

88.4b ± 0. 97

88.3b ± 0.86

0.045

CP

20.2± 1.31

22.8 ± 3.29

21.8 ± 0.88

20.6 ± 2.46

19.2 ± 1.35

19.5 ± 1.80

0.137

EE

8.00 ± 3.29

6.00 ± 1.81

7.10± 0.24

7.40± 1.39

7.20± 0.72

7.80± 1.67

0.697

CF

4.80b ± 1.10

7.10a ± 1.60

5.68bc ± 0.71

4.50b ± 1.38

5.5ab ± 1.15

6.30ab ±1.03

0.065

Ash

6.30c ± 0.89

7.90ab ± 1.62

6.80bc ± 0.59

6.30c ± 0.45

8.60a ± 0.89

8.20a ± 0.40

0.005

NFE

60.6 ± 4.23

55.9 ± 6.95

58.4 ± 0.54

61.0 ± 1.04

59.3 ± 1.38

58.1± 1.92

0.377

Ca

1.10c ± 0.14

1.20ab ± 0.03

1.10bc ± 0.03

0.90d ± 0.03

1.10bc± 0.11

1.30a ± 0.03

<0.001

Total P

0.50a ± 0.05

0.50a ± 0.04

0.40b ± 0.05

0.50ab ± 0.02

0.50a ± 0.03

0.50a ± 0.05

0.010

MJ/kg

14.2a ± 0.89

12.7b ± 0.74

13.6a ± 0.35

14.2a ± 0.28

13.5ab ± 0.31

13.4ab± 0.50

0.014

# Values indicate mean ±SD; abc Means in same row bearing uncommon superscripts differ at P<0.05


Annex table 3. Amino acid profiles (g/100g air dried sample) of compound poultry feed samples

Treatment
Amino acids

GLY

THR

ARG

TYR

TRY

MET

VAL

PHE

ILE

LEU

LYS

Starter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T1

1.23

0.86

1.80

0.78

0.23

0.43

1.03

1.03

1.11

1.71

1.05

T2

1.06

0.71

1.46

0.74

0.18

0.32

0.99

1.13

0.84

1.79

1.02

T3

1.20

0.59

1.32

0.70

0.18

0.36

0.84

0.97

0.74

1.52

0.99

T4

0.96

0.63

1.42

0.74

0.20

0.38

0.89

1.17

0.87

1.79

1.07

T5

1.02

0.65

1.30

0.66

0.19

0.41

0.90

0.98

0.78

1.66

1.02

T6

1.01

0.61

1.42

0.68

0.19

0.39

0.88

1.01

0.75

1.58

0.95

Grower

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T1

0.95

0.56

0.83

0.39

0.27

0.45

0.49

0.61

0.43

0.96

0.67

T2

0.90

0.46

0.96

0.44

0.19

0.28

0.57

0.70

0.49

1.14

0.73

T3

0.87

0.53

1.09

0.62

0.21

0.36

0.66

0.79

0.58

1.37

0.70

T4

1.08

0.67

0.96

0.47

0.26

0.44

0.55

0.70

0.48

1.18

0.73

T5

0.97

0.66

0.91

0.45

0.23

0.39

0.57

0.67

0.49

1.18

0.71

T6

0.86

0.55

1.15

0.52

0.26

0.41

0.75

0.77

0.61

1.34

0.72

Finisher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T1

0.76

0.59

1.13

0.46

0.24

0.40

0.74

0.78

0.64

1.49

0.66

T2

0.97

0.54

1.09

0.45

0.24

0.36

0.74

0.79

0.66

1.30

0.80

T3

0.49

0.46

0.85

0.42

0.27

0.43

0.57

0.61

0.53

1.06

0.52

T4

0.91

0.48

0.93

0.54

0.20

0.33

0.55

0.65

0.48

1.17

0.67

T5

0.81

0.43

0.86

0.36

0.26

0.44

0.60

0.66

0.53

1.09

0.68

T6

0.79

0.50

1.04

0.44

0.23

0.35

0.68

0.74

0.57

1.31

0.63

Values are from single observation. Glycine (GLY), Threonine (THR), Arginine (ARG), Tyrocine (TYR), Tryptophan (TRY), Methionine (MET), Valine (VAL), Phenylalanine (PHE), Isoleosine (ILE), Leucine (LEU) and Lysine (LYS)


Received 23 August 2004; Accepted 30 August 2004

Go to top