See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273064100

Influence of Supplementation of Herbal Growth Promoter on Growth and

Performance of Broilers

Article · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

7 1,266

4 authors, including:

Bhagirathi K Pugashetti
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
18 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bhagirathi K Pugashetti on 04 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Karnataka J.Agric.Sci.,18 (2):(481-484) 2005

Influence of Supplementation of Herbal Growth Promoter on

Growth and Performance of Broilers
M. C. SHIVAKUMAR, JAVED MULLA, B. K. PUGASHETTI AND SARAH NIDGUNDI
Poultry Unit, Main Agricultural Research Station,
University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad - 580 005
(Received : April, 2004)
Abstract: Biological trial was conducted at MARS, poultry unit on broilers to study the influence of
herbal growth promoter. Two hundred one day-old broiler chicks were grouped into two with two
replications. Herbal growth promoter was given through drinking water to one group and the other
group remained as control. Weekly data on body weight , feed consumption , feed efficiency and
livability was recorded and subjected to statistical analysis. Results revealed that broilers given
herbal growth promoter through drinking water performed better than the unsupplemented control
group. Significant (P>0.05) improvement in body weight was seen from second week onwards.
Feed efficiency and feed consumption remained non-significant among the groups. Dressing percentage
were significantly (P>0.05) better in supplemented group over control group. Livability percentage of
96 and 94 per cent was recorded in supplemented and unsupplemented group respectively. Net
returns were also more in birds which received herbal growth promoter through drinking water.

Introduction replications. Each replicate consists of fifty

India stands 4th and 5th position in egg
and broiler production respectively. Currently in
India broiler production is growing at a rate of
10-15% per annum. Many feed supplements are
added to the diet for proper utilization of feed
ingredients like antibiotics, probiotics (Naik et al.,
2000) and recently prebiotics (Panda, 2003).
Synthetic drugs and chemicals have certain
disadvantages like toxicity, contra indications,
resistance, health hazards, high cost, etc. In order
to over come the mentioned disadvantages
certain herbal products are used which posses
no danger and of course it is a natural product.
Herbal products will not have any side effects,
resistance and residual effect.
The present investigation was under
taken by supplementing herbal liver tonics as a
growth promoter with an objective of improvement
in body weight , feed utilization, feed efficiency,
livability and finally better net returns.
Material and Methods
Two treatments consisting of one hundred
day - old chicks in each treatment with two
chicks. Chicks were reared on deep litter system.
Herbal growth promoter was given through
drinking water for one group (supplemented group)
and for another group plain water was given
without any addition (unsupplemented group).
Herbal growth promoter consists of Nimba,
Bhringaraja, Bhumyaamlaki, Haritaki, Yashoda-
bhasma, kasani, Arjuna and kakamachi. Five
ml of liver stimulants was given for hundred birds
for two weeks and twenty ml from third week
onwards for hundred birds in water. Balanced
computed ration were given to birds which was
purchased from reputed company. Feed and
water was given ad lib. Upto third week age
broilers were offered broiler starter feed and
finisher feed was given later. Vaccination against
Ranikhet disease and Infectious Bursal disease
was carried out as per the schedule. Dead birds
were subjected to thorough post mortem
examination to rule out the epidemic disease.
Livability was calculated depending on death of
birds. Birds were maintained under standard
managemental practices. Initial body weight,
body weights on second, fourth and sixth week
and feed consumption was also recorded and

481
Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences: 18 (2), 2005
cumulative feed efficiency was calculated. One
bird from each replication was slaughtered and
dressing yield was recorded. Data thus collected
was subjected to statistical analysis, as per
Snedecor and Cochran (1968) and the designed
followed was Randomized Block Design and
means were compared by multiple “ F “ test
(Duncan, 1955). An attempt was made at the
end of the trail to calculate the net returns from
herbal growth promoter supplementation.
Results and Discussion
Herbal growth promoter received group
birds performed better than the unsupplemented
group. Data on weekly body weight, feed
consumption and feed efficiency was recorded
and results of second, fourth and sixth week is
depicted in table 1. Significant (P>0.05)
improvement in body weight was noticed from
second week onwards upto termination of
experiment. Non- significant (P>0.05) difference
was observed in feed intake among the different
groups. Birds in control group consumed little
lesser feed when compared to treated group.
Cumulative feed efficiency did not differ
significantly (P>0.05) among the groups upto end
of the experiment. Statistically non-significant
but numerical the lower feed efficiency was noticed
Table 1. Weeks showing cumulative performance of broilers supplemented with herbal growth promoter
Weeks Body weight
(g)
II C 327 ± 1.003a
T 317 ± 3.009b
a
IV C 887 ± 7.02
T 823 ± 3.009b
VI C 1764 ± 42a
T 1718 ± 93 b
* Means bearing common super script row wise do not differ significantly (p>0.05)
* C = Control T = Treated
482
in herbal growth promoter received group when
compared to group which did not receive any
growth promoter at sixth week. Improvement in
body weight and better feed efficiency which is
due to herbal products which have several actions
like stomachic, useful in disorders like diarrhoea,
indigestion, anemia and jaundice (Deepak Gujral,
et al.,2002). They are also the good source of
nutrient like Ascorbic acid, Protein and minerals
etc., (Anon., 2003). Higher feed consumption
was due to enhanced appetite (Deepak Gujral,
et al., 2002). Herbal preparations are known to
be liver correctives, immuno modulators, anti
stress agents, anti bacterials and growth
promoters (Devegowda, 1996). Present findings
fall in line with the findings of Deepak Gujral et al.
(2002). Similarly, Kailaswar et al. (1997) has
observed higher feed intake (P>0.05) in liv-52 and
livol supplemented group respectively. Higher gain
in body weight and lower feed intake resulted in
better feed efficiency. Devegowda et al. (1990)
observed highly significant feed efficiency in
broilers of livol treated group as compared to
control group. Similar findings was observed by
Deepak Gujrai et al. (2002). Narahari (1995)
observed that improvement was 0.81% in the livfit
supplemented group over the control group.
Feed consumption Feed conservation
(g) rate
431 ± 3.19 1.32 ± 0.01
445 ± 10.65 1.40 ± 0.03
1712 ± 28 1.93 ± 0.06
1661 ± 10.53 2.02 ± 0.01
3553 ± 16 2.01 ± 0.01
3559 ± 30 2.07 ± 0.01
Influence of Supplementation....

Table 2. Economics, mortality and ready to cock yields of broilers supplemented with herbal growth
promoter
Description Treated Untreated
Livability (%) 96 94
Dressing percentage (%) 74.25 ± 0.66a 72.38 ± 0.79b
Cost of liver stimulant / brid (Rs.) 0.82 Nil
Cost of feed / bird (@ Rs. 10.21 kg) (Rs.) 36.28 36.34
Total feed cost / bird (Rs.) 37.07 36.34
Sale of bird @ Rs. 32/kg live weight (Rs.) 56.45 54.98
Profit / bird over feed cost (Rs.) 19.38 18.64
Extra gain / bird (Rs.) 0.74 --
Profit / kg live weight (Rs.) 0.43 --
* Means bearing common super script row wise do not differ significantly (p>0.05)

Death of more birds were recorded in
control group. Livability percentage of 96% and
94% was observed in herbal growth promoter
supplemented group and control group
respectively (Table 2) Similar findings was
observed by Bhagwat et al. (1999). Lower
mortality may be due to protection of liver from
toxins, drugs, chemicals and pesticides (Anon.,
2003). Rao and Reddy (1986) reported that
herbally derived products prevents fungal growth
and detoxifies contaminated feed. Similarly,
Narahari (1995) observed higher livability in livfit
supplemented group . Devegowda (1996) reported
significant improvement in groups which received
livol and livfit compared to control group birds.
Results confirms with findings of Narahari (1995)
and Devegowda (1996). Devegowda et al. (1990)
reported that herbal growth promoters have
improved the over all performance of broilers with
respect to weight gain, feed efficiency, lowered
mortality and also as therapeutic against liver
damage due to feed contaminants like aflatoxins,
toxicity caused by chemical drugs and in
improving digestion.
Dressing percentage was significantly
(P>0.05) higher in herbal growth promoter
supplemented group compared to control group.
This may be due to higher weight gain in the
supplemented group and also additional nutrients
(Anon., 2003) that are obtained from the herbal
growth promoter supplementation.
At the end of the experiment economics
were calculated. Since other expenditure
remained constant only additional
supplementation cost was included with the feed
cost. Total feed cost was higher in supplemented
group. Extra gain of Rs.0.74/bird was noticed in
herbal growth promoter received group when
compared with unsupplemented group. Nearly
Rs.0.43/kg live weight was the extra profit, this
extra gain may be due higher performance.
Narahari (1995) reported higher returns in livfit
supplemented group, results confirms with
findings of Narahari (1995).
It can be concluded from the study that
birds which received herbal growth promoters
through drinking water performed better compared
to unreceived group. Mortality percentage was
lower and dressing percentage was higher in
supplemented group. Net returns revealed higher
returns in supplemented group. Hence herbal
growth promoter can be supplemented through
drinking water for better broiler performance.

483
 Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences: 18 (2), 2005
References
ANONYMOUS, 2003, Liv-52: A Poultry Feed Supplement.
The Himalaya Drug Company. Animal Health
Products, Makali, Bangalore, pp. 7.
ANONYMOUS, 2003, Liv-52 Protec Himalaya Animal health.
Technical Bulletin, 1:2
BHAGWAT, V., MITRA, S.K. SURYANARAYAN,T. AND
ASHISH S ACHAN, 1999, The Anabolic activity of
Liv 52 Protec in commercial broilers. Poultry
Advisor, 32(8):27.
DEEPAK GUJRAL, JOGI,S., ASHOK KUMAR, R.K.S., BAIS
AND VIKAS,2002, Effect of herbal liver stimulants
on efficacy of feed utilization in commercial broiler
chicken. Indian Journal of Animal Research, 36
(1) : 43-45.
DEVEGOWDA,G.,RAMAPPA, B.S. AND BARMASE, B. S.,
1990, Livol supplementation in broiler diets improved
their performance. Pashudhan, 5(1):25.
DEVEGOWDA, G.,1996, Herbal medicines - An untrapped
treasure in poultry production. XX World’s Poultry
Congress, New Delhi, 11:135-140.
484
View publication stats
DUNCAN,D.D., 1955, Multiple range and multiple “F” tests.
Biometrics, 11:1-42.
KAILASWAR, S.A., BHUTE, R.G., SHAMMAL PAWAR AND
TORO,U.A. 1997, Effect of dietary supplementation
of roxarsona and livol on the performance of
broilers. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 14(4)
:279-280.
NAIK, D.G., JAVED MULLA AND SHIVAKUMAR, M.C., 2000,
Performance of broilers supplemented with
probiotics. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 13(4): 957-960.
NARAHARI,D., 1995, Performance promoting ability of livfit
in broilers. Poultry Guide, 32:13-14.
PANDA, A. K., 2003, Prebiotics as feed additive in poultry.
Poultry Planner, 12: 14-15.
RAO, P. V. AND REDDY, V. R., 1986, The effect of livol on
the performance of broiler chicken. Pashudhan,
1(3): 8.
SNEDECOR, G. W. AND COCHRAN, W. G., 1968, Statistical
Methods. VI Edn., Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa, pp.1-60.