Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, D: Agriculture and Veterinary, Volume 21 Issue 7

Table 2: Effect of Alum Treated and Untreated Litter on Broiler Chickens Performance Treatments Alum Inclusion (%) Parameter T1 T2 T3 T4 SEM Final Weight(g) 1961.00 c 2403.00 a 2413.00 a 2295.00 b 11.21 Daily Feed Intake (g) 86.00 95.00 95.00 91.00 4.65 Daily Water Intake (ml) 276.00 264.00 244.00 239.00 11.97 Daily Weight Gain (g) 35.00 39.00 38.00 34.00 2.88 Total Weight Gain (g) 1911.00 c 2353.00 a 2363.00 a 2245.00 b 9.43 FCR 2.43 a 2.19 ab 2.18 b 2.35 ab 0.07 Cost/kg Gain (N) 216.05 a 194.70 b 195.50 b 196.00 b 3.51 Mortality (%) 43.33 a 3.33 b 1.67 b 5.00 b 1.08 abc = Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly (P<0.05) different.FCR = Feed conversion ratio. Standard error of mean. Table 3: Effect of Alum Treated and Untreated Litter on Carcass Characteristics of Broiler Chicken Treatments Alum Inclusion (%) Parameter 0 5 10 15 SEM Live weight (g) 1970.00 c 2400.00 a 2400.00 a 2270.00 b 25.40 Dressed Weight (g) 1720.00 c 2320.00 a 2270.00 a 2080.00 b 18.60 Carcass Weight (g) 1320.00 c 1740.00 a 1750.00 a 1530.00 b 14.50 Dressing Percentage (%) 87.32 c 96.53 a 94.44 ab 91.93 b 1.05 Prime cuts expressed as percent of carcass weight Breast (%) 22.56 b 26.60 a 26.66 a 26.40 a 0.96 Wings (%) 10.66 a 9.73 b 9.67 b 10.66 a 0.25 Back (%) 20.43 a 16.75 b 16.86 b 16.66 b 1.08 Thigh (%) 14.40 b 16.83 a 16.66 a 16.46 a 0.34 Drum Stick (%) 12.70 c 15.70 a 15.56 a 15.16 b 0.29 Organs expressed as percent of live weight Spleen (%) 0.26 a 0.16 b 0.16 b 0.14 b 0.08 Heart (%) 0.82 a 0.46 b 0.46 b 0.46 b 0.07 Liver (%) 3.81 a 2.26 c 2.27 c 2.87 b 0.02 Lungs (%) 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.04 Kidney (%) 1.17 a 0.57 d 0.57 c 0.61 b 0.04 abc = Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly (P<0.05) different.SEM = Standard error of mean. c) Chemical analysis of recycled litter treated with graded levels of Alum The fortnightly(week 2, week 4, week 6 and week 8) result of the effect of alum treated poultry litter on litter pH is presented in Figure 1. The result shows significantly (P<0.05) Lower pH values in all the alum treated litters groups (5%, 10% and 15% alum treated litter) compared to the control group (0% alum treated litter) for weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8. The pH levels decreases with increasing levels of Alum in week 4 and 6 (P<0.05). The result of total nitrogen levels of alum treated and untreated litter at two week intervals during the research period is presented in Figure 2. The result shows significantly (P<0.05) higher nitrogen content in all the alum treated litters (5%, 10% and 15% alum treated litter) compared to the control (0% alum treated litter) for 2, 4, 6 and 8. The fortnightly soluble reactive phosphorus levels of alum treated and untreated litter is presented in Figure 3. The result shows significantly (P<0.05) lower soluble reactive phosphorus level in all the alum treated litter groups (5%, 10% and 15% alum treated litter) compared to the control group (0% alum treated litter). Figure 4 shows the fortnightly total volatile fatty acid levels of alum treated and untreated litter. The result shows significantly (P<0.05) lower total volatile fatty acid levels in all alum treated litter groups (5%, 10% and 15% alum treated litter) compared to the control(0% alum treated litter).The fortnightly ammonium ion (NH 4 + ) concentrations of alum treated and untreated litter is presented in Figure 5. The result shows significantly (P<0.05) higher ammonium ion concentration in the alum treated litter groups (5%, 10% and 15% alum treated litter) compared to the control (0% alum treated litter). © 2021 Global Journals 1 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXI Issue VII Year 2021 20 ( D ) Version I Performance of Broiler Birds Managed on Recycled Litter Treated with Graded Levels of Aluminium Sulphate (Alum) SEM =