Available online at www.pelagiaresearchlibrary.

com

Pelagia Research Library

European Journal of Experimental Biology, 2013, 3(4):66-70

ISSN: 2248 –9215

CODEN (USA): EJEBAU

Effects of different feed forms on performance in broiler chickens

Chehraghi M., Zakeri A.* and Taghinejad-Roudbaneh M.

Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

The study determined the effects of different feed forms on performance in broiler chickens. Ninety six broiler
chickens of 1-day old divided in to 3 different feed treatment groups, namely: mash group, crumble group and pellet
group. Each group was divided in to 4 replication, consisted of 8 chickens each. The chickens were raised for 6
weeks. All chickens were weekly weight and feed consumption weekly measured in each group. The results showed
that dietary treatment were significantly increase weight gain in crumble group and were significantly increase
weekly feed intake in pellet group but not significantly increase FCR in mash group (p<0.05).

Key words: broiler chicken, mash, crumble, pellet, growth factors

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, various commercial feed mills are producing different forms of broiler feed for different age group of
bird. Pelleting is a processing method that is employed by the feed manufactures to improve farm animal
performance.

The physical form of feed (mash, pellet and crumble) is a crucial factor in meat yield of broiler. Different types of
feed forms have been evolved in broiler production at the present time. Various feed forms pellet, mash or crumble
that to be supplied to broiler are the most important factor which directly influence the cost of mixed feed and
production performance of broiler. The major objective of poultry feeding is the conversion of feedstuff into human
food. Mash is a form of a complete feed that is finely ground and mixed so that birds cannot easily separate out
ingredients; each mouthful provides a well balanced diet. However, ground feed is not so palatable and does not
retain their nutritive value so well as ungrounded feed. [Mendes et al., 1995] showed that birds fed mash diets had a
better feed conversion efficiency than those given the pellet. [Proudfoot and Hulan, 1982] observed that the
incidence of sudden death syndrome (SDS) was significantly higher for broilers fed on crumble-pellet or ground
crumble-pellet form diet than for birds fed on mash.

Pellet system of feeding is really a modification of the mash system. It consists of mechanically pressing the mash
into hard dry pellets or "artificial grains". Pellet is a form of complete feed that is compacted and extruded to about
1/8 inch in diameter and 1/4 inch in long [Banerjee, 1988]. The greatest advantage in using pellets is that there is
little waste in feeding. The disadvantage is that pellets are expensive-about 10 percent more expensive than that of
feeds not pelleted. [Asha Rajini et al., 1998a, b] reported that pellets had better-feed efficiency up to six-week age of
birds. On the other had [Moran ,1990] observed that pelleting of feed improves the body weight of poultry. [Bolton
and Blair ,1977] reported that feed intake of broilers could be up to 10 per cent greater with crumble or pellets
compared with mash.

66
Pelagia Research Library
 Zakeri A. et al Euro. J. Exp. Bio., 2013, 3(4):66-70
_____________________________________________________________________________
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research work was conducted at Tabriz branch, Islamic Azad University Poultry farm. Aim at research was
compare the effect of different feed forms on performance in broiler chickens. Experimental farm of the broiler
house was properly washed and cleaned by using tap water. Farm was thoroughly cleaned and disinfected using
diluted disinfectant solution. After drying, the experimental room was divided into twelve separated pens of equal
size by using plastic net. The height of each net partition was 90 cm. A total of 96 Ross 308 broiler chicks of 1 day-
old were used for the experiment. The experiment was designed in three (3) dietary treatments having four (4)
replications of each. Primary material buy the poultry feed factory. All of the forms of the feed were of identical
composition. Uniformity in the management practices was maintained as much as possible. Chicken were randomly
distributed in 12 equal size pens, which were previously cleaned and disinfected. A 100-watt electric bulb was
hanged at a height of 2.8 metre in the middle of room. Each pen was 90 cm x 90 cm and was allotted for 8 birds.
One feeder (60cm x 8 cm x 5 cm) and one round drinker with a capacity of 2.5 liter were provided in each pen. The
feeders and drinker were fixed in such a way that the birds were able to eat and drink conveniently. For floor used
the cartoon. Feed and water were supplied ad libitum to the birds throughout the experimental period. Feed and fresh
drinking water were supplied to the experimental birds daily once in the morning and again in the afternoon. The
birds were always exposed to a continuous lighting of 23 hours and 30 minutes and a dark period of 30 minutes in
each 24 hours of photoperiod. During night, electric bulb was used to provide necessary light. For the treatment was
vaccination program. Drinkers were washed and cleaned daily in the morning and feeders were cleaned weekly
before being used. Strict sanitary measures were followed during the experimental period. Experimental house was
recorded four times a day (6 AM, 12 PM, 6 PM, and 12AM) using a thermometer. Dead birds were sent to the
Pathology laboratory during the experimental period treatment and replication wise data on live weight, feed
consumption, survivability, temperature and FCR were recorded. And data on body weight gain, feed conversion
ratio were calculated following the below mentioned formulae.

Feed intake (g)

Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) = --------------------
Live weight (g)

Table 1: Composition (%) of experimental diets (0-42days)

Ingredient 0-14 14-28 28-42

Corn 52.20 54.80 53.80
Soybean 38.00 30.00 25.00
Wheat 5.00 10.00 15.00
Dicalsium phosphate 1.20 1.20 1.20
Oyster shell meal 1.80 1.80 1.80
Vitamin supplement 0.30 0.30 0.30
Mineral supplement 0.30 0.30 0.30
Methionine 0.25 0.21 0.18
Lysine 0.22 0.15 0.13
Salt 0.15 0.15 0.15
Enzyme 0.05 0.05 0.05
Oil 0.50 1.00 2.00
Salinomaysin - 0.05 0.05
Total 100 100 100

All recorded and calculated data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance technique by a computer
using a SAS statistical computer package programmed in accordance with the principle of Completely Randomized
Design (CRD). Less Significant Differences (LSD) were calculated to compare variation between treatments where
ANOVA showed significant differences.

RESULTS

Different growth performance parameters average weekly body weight, body weight gain, feed consumption, feed
conversion ratio and survivability per cent were presented in the Table 3. At the same time week wise table of the
above mentioned parameters also presented and discussed subsequently.

Xij=µ+Tj+∑ij

Weight gain
Weight gain of birds of mash, pellet and crumble group in 1and 2 weeks of age showed no significant differences. In
3-6 weeks most weight gain related to crumble groups and was significant difference between mash and crumble

67
Pelagia Research Library
 Zakeri A. et al Euro. J. Exp. Bio., 2013, 3(4):66-70
_____________________________________________________________________________
group. But between mash and pellet, crumble and pellet Weight gain of the birds did not differ significantly
(P<0.05) (Table2)

Table 2: weight gain of broiler fed on mash, pellet, and crumble (g/bird/week)

Treatment 1 week* 2 week * 3 week 4 week 5 week 6 week

T1:mash 103.5 ± 9.67 a 232.5 ± 21.54 a 504 ± 34.51 b 903.5 ± 58.23 c 1506.5 ± 8561 a 1984.5 ± 122.16 b
T2;crumbel 106.5 ± 11.56 a 257.5 ± 29.78 a 622 ± 31.5 a 1015.25 ± 52.79 b 1660.5 ± 139.24 a 2237.75 ± 193.80 a
T3:pellet 114.75 ± 6.99 a 277.25 ± 12.09 a 654.75 ± 20.38 a 1109.5 ± 32.67 a 1674 ± 60.89 a 2190 ± 31.26 ab
a,b,c: Showed that was significantly differ between group.
*: Showed that feed was mash.(P<0.05)

Average weight gain

Average weight of birds of mash, pellet and crumble group in 1and 2 weeks of age showed no significant
differences. In 3 and 4 weeks most weight gain related to pellet groups that were significant differences. In 5 and 6
weeks most Average weight gain were related to crumble groups that were no significant differences (Table3
)(P<0.05).

Table3: Average weight gain of broiler fed on mash, pellet, and crumble (g/bird/week)

Treatment 1 week* 2 week * 3 week 4 week 5 week 6 week

T1:mash 65.5 ± 6.67 a 129 ± 12.35 a 271.5 ± 13.3 b 399.5 ± 28.94 b 60.3 ± 52.26 a 478 ± 62.59 a
T2:crumbel 68.5 ± 11.56 a 151 ± 18.673 a 364.5 ± 24.29 a 373 ± 14.765 b 658.75 ± 145.2 a 577.25 ± 154.91 a
T3:pellet 76.75 ± 6.99 a 162.5 ± 5.68 a 374.5 ± 50.88 a 457.75 ± 30.237 a 538.25 ± 32.66 a 543 ± 45.37 a
a,b,c: Showed that was significantly differ between group.
*: Showed that feed was mash.(p<0.05)

Feed intake
There were significant differences in 1and 2 week feed intake among the three dietary groups. In 3-6 weeks The
highest and the lowest feed intake were observed in crumble and pellet group as well as mash group respectively
that among crumble and mash group, pellet and mash group were significant differences(Table4)(p<0.05).

Table 4: Feed intake of broiler fed on mash, pellet, and crumble (g/bird/week)

Treatment 1 week * 2 week * 3 week 4 week 5 week 6 week

T1:mash 94.25 ± 6.75 a 275.75 ± 43.14 a 801.75 ± 40.90 a 1728 ± 50.82 a 2822 ± 84.96 a 3982 ± 77.85 a
T2:crumbel 93.25 ± 7.27 a 367 ± 92.39 a 967.75 ± 89.24 b 1953.75 ± 79.52 b 2992.75 ± 85.36 b 4169.75 ± 96.4 b
T3:pellet 91.25 ± 3.86 a 372.25 ± 60.93 a 1006 ± 91092 b 1967.50 ± 75.26 b 3033.25 ± 97.69 b 4240.50 ± 107.33 b
a,b,c: Showed that was significantly differ between group.
*: Showed that feed was mash.(p<0.05)

Weekly feed intake

There were significant differences in 1and 2 week feed intake among the three dietary groups. In 3-6 weeks The
highest feed intake were observed in pellet and the lowest feed intake were observed in crumble and mash group.
Among all of the group were significant differences (Table5)(p<0.05).

Table 5: Weekly feed intake of broiler fed on mash, pellet, and crumble (g/bird/week)

Treatment 1 week * 2 week * 3 week 4week 5 week 6 week

T1:mash 94.25 ± 6.75 a 181 ± 38.30 a 526.5 ± 19.46 a 926.25 ± 24.95 a 1094 ± 6.48 b 1160 ± 30.82 a
T2:crumbel 93.25 ± 7.27 a 237.75 ± 85.19 a 600.75 ± 17.28 b 961.50 ± 12.13 b 1039 ± 36.82 a 1177 ± 14/58 ab
T3:pellet 91.25 ± 3.86 a 281 ± 62.13 a 633.75 ± 44/97 b 986 ± 18.04 b 1064.75± 42.62 ab 1207.25 ± 18.62 b
a,b,c: Showed that was significantly differ between group.
*: Showed that feed was mash.(p<0.05)

Table 6: Weekly feed intake of broiler fed on mash, pellet, and crumble (g/bird/week)

Treatment 1 week* 2 week* 3 week 4 week 5 week 6 week

T1:mash 1.44 ± 0.12 a 1.4 ± 0.28 a 1.94 ± 0.12 a 2.01 ± 0.16 a 2.32 ± 0.14 a 2.42 ± 0.29 a
T2:Crumbel 1.38 ± 0.24 a 1.72 ± 0.55 a 1.64 ± 0.14 b 1.64 ± 0.10 b 1.87 ± 0.42 b 2.13 ± 0.51 b
T3:Pellet 1.18 ± 0.10 a 1.81 ± 0.36 a 1.68 ± 0.08 b 1.78 ± 0.11 ab 1.91 ± 0.29 b 2.23 ± 0.18 b
a,b,c: Showed that was significantly differ between group.
*: Showed that feed was mash.(p<0.05)

68
Pelagia Research Library
 Zakeri A. et al Euro. J. Exp. Bio., 2013, 3(4):66-70
_____________________________________________________________________________
Feed conversion ratio (FCR)
Feed conversion ratios (FCR) were no significant differences in 1and 2 week feed intake among the three dietary
groups. In 3-6 weeks the highest FCR were observed in mash and the lowest FCR were observed in crumble among
the entire group were significant differences (Table6) (p<0.05).

DISCUSSION

This result might be supported by [Preston et al., 2000] and [Munt et al. , 1995] who showed significantly poorer
performance of mash-fed birds. [Kim and Chung, 1994) showed that mash-fed bird had lower body weight at 41
days than birds fed on crumble and pellet. [Reece et al., 1985], [Auckland and Fulton, 1972] and [Runnels et al,
1976] also agreed that crumble feed increased body weight than other forms. The present studies also agreed with
[Choi et al, 1986] who showed that the chicks fed crumbled diet gained more weight and pelleting diet also
significantly improved weight gain compared to those fed on mash diet. These results agreed with the findings of
[Sinha et al., 1994] and [Reece et al., 1985] who reported that mash gave significantly (P<0.05) lower Average
weight gain than did crumble.[Asha Rajini et al., 1998a, b] , [Deaton et al., 1992], [Kamar et al., 1974] and
[Bertechini et al., 1992] reported that pellet fed birds gain heavier body weight than that of mash. [Allred et al.,
1996] also reported that chicks grew faster when fed pellets or crumbles than when the same diets fed as mash.
Similar results were found by [Bolton and Blair , 1977] who reported that 10 per cent

Greater feed intake could be happened with crumble or pellets than with mash. [Bertechini et al., 1992] reported that
pelleted diets gave greater feed intake than did mash forms. At the similar way [Moran, 1990] and [Nir et al., 1995]
showed that pellet diet increased feed intake in broilers. [Hamm and Stephenson, 1959] also reported that pelleted or
crumble diet increased voluntary feed intake. Similar results were found by [Jahan, M. Asaduzzaman A.K, Sarkar,
2006] who reported that Performance of Broiler Feed on Mash, Pellet and Crumble. At the similar way [Moran,
1990] and [Nir et al., 1995] showed that pellet diet increased feed intake in broilers. [Hamm and Stephenson ,1959]
also reported that pelleted or crumble diet increased voluntary feed intake

Similar results were obtained by [Asha Rajini et al., 1998a,b], [Mendes et al., 1995]. [Moran ,1990] and [Reece et
al., 1986] who reported that pellets had a better feed efficiency over mash. [Howlider and Rose, 1992] found that
pelleting increase feed conversion by 5.9%. [Kim and Chung, 1996] concluded that crumble-pellet treatment
significantly improved feed conversion. In the same way [Reece et al., 1984] reported that crumbling improved feed
conversion 1.5 per cent.

REFERENCES

[1] Asha Rajini R, Thanabalan S, Narahari D and Kumararaj R, 1998a. Ind. J. Poult. Sci., 33: 36-41.
[2] Asha Rajini R, Kumararaj R, Narahari D, Ravindran R, Sundaresan K, 1998b. Ind. J. Poult. Sci., 33:346-348.
[3] Auckland J.M, Fulton R.B, 1972. Poult. Sci., 51: 1968-1975.
[4] Allred J.B, Jensen L.S, Mc Ginnis J, 1996. Poult. Sci., 35: 1130-1133.
[5] Bertechini A.G, Rostagno H.S, Fonseca J.B, Oliveira A.IG, 1992. Poult. Abst., 18: 3066.
[6] Bertechini A.G, Rostagno H.S , Oliveira A.I.G, 1992. Poult. Abst., 18: 2965.
[7] Banerjee G.C, 1998. Poultry. Third edition, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta, pp: 120-121
[8] Bolton W, Blai Rr, 1977. Poultry Nutrition. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Bulletin 174 (London,
H.M.S.O.).
[9] Choi J.H, B.S. So, Ryu K.S , Kang S.L, 1986. Poult. Sci., 65: 594-597.
[10] Deaton J.W, 1992. Poult. Sci., 71: 1807-1810.
[11] Kamar G.A.R., Akheireldin M.A, EL-Difrawi A.F , Chany M, 1974. Egyp. J. Anim. Prod. 14: 129-135.
[12] Hamm D, Stephenson E.L, 1959. Poult. Sci., 38:1211-1215.
[13] Howlider, M.A.R, Rose S.P, 1992. Anim. Feed Sci. Tec., 39: 71-78.
[14] Kim, Hyoung Ho and Chung, Yuen Hoo, 1994. The effects of crumbles, pelleted and extruded feed on the
performance of broiler chicken. Sustainable.
[15] Kim, Hyoung Ho and Chung, Yuen Hoo, 1996. Journal of Agricultural Science, Livest., 35: 554-558.
[16]Moran E.T, Jr, 1990. Poult. Abst., 16: 2875.
[17] Moran E.T, Jr, 1990. Poult. Abst., 16: 2875
[18] Preston CM, Mc Cracken R.J, Mc Allister A, 2000. Br. Poult. Sci., 41: 324-331.
[19] Mendes A.A, Polity E.S, Garcia E.A , Sartor J.Ri, 1995. Veterinaria-e-zootecnia, 7: 31-40.
[20] Munt R.H.C, J.G. Dingle and M.G. Sumpa, 1995. Br. Poult. Sci., 36: 277-284.
[21] Nir I, Hillel R, Ptichi I , Shefet G, 1995. Poult. Sci., 74: 771-783.
[22] Proudfoot F.G H.W. Hulan, 1982. Poult. Sci., 61: 750-754.
[23] Reece F.N, Lott B.N , Deaton J.W, 1984. Poult. Sci., 63: 1906-1911.

69
Pelagia Research Library
 Zakeri A. et al Euro. J. Exp. Bio., 2013, 3(4):66-70
_____________________________________________________________________________
[24] Reece F.N, Lott B.D, Deaton J.N, 1985. Poult. Sci. 64: 1834-1839.
[25] Reece F.N, Lott B, Deaton J.N, 1986. Poult. Sci., 65: 636-641.
[26] Runnels T.D, Malone G, Klopp S, 1976. Poult. Sci., 55: 1958-1961.
[27] Sinha S.C, Digvijoi Singh N.N, Pandita, 1994. Poultry Today and Tomorrow, 4: 26-30.

70
Pelagia Research Library