The Effect of Depth of Rice Hulls Litter on Fattening Performance, Foot Pad Dermatitis, Meat Quality Characteristics of Broiler Chicken
Abstract
This study was carried out to determine the effect of rice hulls used as litter in two different thicknesses (5 and 10 cm) on fattening performance, mortality rate, foot pad lesions, meat quality and meat color characteristics of Ross 308 chickens. Rice hulls of 5 cm (T5) and 10 cm (T10) thickness were laid on the coops that were similar in size and design. Fattening performance, FCR (feed conversion ratio), mortality rate, foot pad lesions, meat quality, and meat color characteristics were determined in three consecutive fattening periods. It was determined that the feed conversion ratios were 1.748 and 1.577 in the T5 and T10 groups, respectively, and the difference was significant (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two litter thickness groups in mortality rates, foot pad lesions of the chickens, meat quality characteristics and, meat color characteristics (P>0.05). On the other hand, it was determined that the difference between foot pad lesion scores within the litter thickness groups was significant (P<0.001). As a result, although it is considered an advantage that rice hulls are cheaper than other litter varieties, it is a disadvantage that the lesion rates at Score 3 and 4 levels are high. Since there is no significant difference between the T5 and T10 groups without FCR. Therefore, it may be economically beneficial to use 5 cm thick as a substrate instead of 10 cm.
Keywords
Broiler, fattening performance,, foot pad dermatitis,, litter thickness,, rice hulls
References
- Anisuzzaman, M. & Chowdhury, S.D. (1996). Use of four types of litter for rearing broiler. British Poultry Science, 37, 541-545.
- Angelo, J.S., Gonzales E., Kondo, N., Anzai, N.H. & Cabral, M.M. (1997). Material de Cama: Quantidade e Efeito Sobre o Desempenho de Frangos de Corte. Revista Brasileria de Zootecnia, 26, 121-130.
- Atasoy, F. (2000). Tavuk Yetiştiriciliğinde Altlığın Kullanılması ve Önemi. Lalahan Hayvancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 40(1), 90-97.
- Benabdeljelil, K. & Ayachi, A. (1996). Evaluation of alternative litter materials for poultry. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 5, 203-209.
- Brown, R.H., Howell, E.S. & McLendon, B.D. (1977). A new concept of litter management for broiler production. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineer, 20, 345-348.
- Çolak, B. & Teke, B. (2022). The effect of season and feed withdrawal duration on meat quality characteristics of broiler chicken in commercial slaughter condition. Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences, 3, 367-373.
- FAWC. (1991). Report on the European Commission Proposals on the Transport of Animals. London: MAFF Publications.
- Garces, A., Afonso, S.S., Chilundo, A. & Jairoce, T.S. (2017). Evaluation of different litter materials for broiler production in a hot and humid environment: 2. Productive performance and carcass characteristics. Tropical Animal Health Production, 49, 369-374.
- Gençoğlan, S. & Gençoğlan, C. (2017). The effect of the litter materials on broiler chickens welfare and performance. Turkish Journal of AgricultureFood Science and Technology, 5(12), 1660-1667.
- Haque, M.I. & Chowdhury, S.D. (1994). Use of rice husk litter at different depths for broiler chicks during summer. British Poultry Science, 35, 809-812.
