Effects of QPM and provitamin-A rich
maize on growth and slaughter
variables in Vanaraja chicken
B. Prakash, S V Rama Rao, MVLN Raju, M Vignesh, K
Rajesh, Bhupender Kumar, Firoz Hossain and Sujay Rakshit
Background
 The success of poultry production depends, 1. Quality of the bird, 2.
Environment and 3. Balanced feed (70-75 percent cost of poultry
production).
 Poultry diet represents 65 percent of maize, serves as source of energy
and essential nutrients.
 However, ordinary maize is poor in essential amino acids viz., lysine and
tryptophan and provitamin-A, which play vital role in growth and
development of chicken.
 The crystalline amino acids are being supplemented in the dies to meet the
requirement.
 Breeding for improve the protein quality in maize has opened the avenues
to think for no addition or minimal supplementation of crystalline amino
acids in poultry diets.
 Therefore, present experiment was carried out to determine the effect of
feeding diets contained different maize hybrids to record the performance
in Vanaraja chickens.
Objective
To study the effect of QPM and
provitamin-A enriched maize on
performance in vanaraja
chicken
Conducted the experiment by feeding diets with
1. QPM
2. White maize
3. QPM + Provitamin-A
In Vanaraja chicks
Nutrient specific maize
White maize APQH9
Variety Provitamin A Lysine (%)
APQH-9 10.2 µg/g 0.365
White maize 1.13 µg/g 0.253
QPM 2.47 µg/g 0. 391
Maize 2.24 µg/g 0.241
Experimental Diets and design
Diet
M.E (Kcal/kg) 2800
Protein (%) 20.0
Lysine (%) 1.15
Methionine (%) 0.50
Calcium (%) 0.94
NPP (%) 0.4
175 birds × 5 diets × 7 replicates × 5 Chicks
Diet 1 (DPR Maize)
Diet 2 (Vivek Hyb 9)
Diet 3 (APQH9)
Diet 4 (QPM 9)
Diet 5 (White maize)
All the diets contained maize 61.76 kg/100 kg diet
Effect of diets on Feed intake (g/birds)
Experimental Diets
3 weeks
(FI, g)
6 weeks
(FI, g)
9 weeks
(FI, g)
Diet 1 DPR Maize 406.3 1257.4 2162.4
Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 419.1 1417.0 2333.3
Diet 3 APQH9 413.8 1269.3 2156.9
Diet 4 Vivek QPM 9 404.0 1334.0 2257.5
Diet 5 White Maize 396.5 1330.0 2246.2
N 7 7 7
SEM 5.78 20.7 26.1
P value 0.7 0.10 0.17
No effect on feed intake
Effect of diets on body weight gain (BWG)
Experimental Diets
3 weeks
(BWG, g)
6 weeks
(BWG, g)
9 weeks
(BWG, g)
Diet 1 DPR Maize 205.3
529.7 909.2
Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 213.0
586.9 956.1
Diet 3 APQH9 210.6
583.4 972.4
Diet 4 Vivek QPM 9 186.6
584.8 960.7
Diet 5 WM 191.4
563.6 962.0
N 7 7 7
SEM 4.98 9.93 11.7
P value 0.36 0.32 0.48
No sig. effect on BWG
Effect of diets on FCR (FI/BWG)
Experimental Diets
3 weeks
FCR
6 weeks
FCR
9 weeks
FCR
Diet 1 DPR Maize 2.023 2.181ab 2.361
Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 1.979 2.202a 2.404
Diet 3 APQH9 1.980 2.034c 2.339
Diet 4 Vivek QPM 9 2.182 2.131bc 2.357
Diet 5 WM 2.096 2.177ab 2.252
N 7 7 7
SEM 0.02 0.02 0.02
P value 0.08 0.01 0.08
Better FCR at 6 wks in APQH9 and QPM
BWG and FCR at 6 weeks of age
1 2 3 4 5
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
BWG
FCR
500
550
600
650
Diets
BWGFCR(FI/BWG)
1: DPR Maize, 2: Vivek Hyb9, 3: APQH9, 4: Vivek QPM 9, 5: White maize
Effect of feeding different source of maize on
performance in Vanaraja birds during 6 weeks of age
Slaughter variables (g)
RTC Breast Liver Ab. fat Gizzard Spleen Heart Bursa
Diet 1 DPR Maize 760.4 152c 24.6 6.10abc 24.8 1.90 5.60 1.54
Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 828.8 168abc 25.9 7.60ab 26.9 3.16 5.88 1.60
Diet 3 APQH9 844.6 195ab 27.8 3.80bc 29.4 2.80 6.30 1.38
Diet 4 QPM 9 825.2 200a 23.5 2.70c 24.8 2.56 6.16 1.08
Diet 5 WM 877.3 166bc 31.6 8.08a 32.3 2.86 12.00 1.92
SEM 23.0 4.9 1.5 0.69 1.6 0.20 1.18 0.16
Pavlue 0.6 0.01 0.5 0.03 0.5 0.38 0.41 0.63
IMPROVED BREAST WEIGHT AND REDUCED ABDOMINAL FAT
Breast muscle and abdominal fat content
1 2 3 4 5
1
3
5
7
9
Breast
Ab fat
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
1: DPR Maize, 2: Vivek Hyb9, 3: APQH9, 4: Vivek QPM 9, 5: White maize
Effect of feeding different maize on breast and
abdominal fat in Vanaraja birdsg
Conclusions
1. It is concluded that the birds fed QPM and
QPM + Provit A showed a better body weight
gain and improved feed efficiency.
2. QPM and QPM + Provit A feeding
considerably reduced the abdominal fat and
increased breast muscle, which is desired attribute
in chickens.
Effects of QPM and PVA maize on chicken

Effects of QPM and PVA maize on chicken

  • 1.
    Effects of QPMand provitamin-A rich maize on growth and slaughter variables in Vanaraja chicken B. Prakash, S V Rama Rao, MVLN Raju, M Vignesh, K Rajesh, Bhupender Kumar, Firoz Hossain and Sujay Rakshit
  • 2.
    Background  The successof poultry production depends, 1. Quality of the bird, 2. Environment and 3. Balanced feed (70-75 percent cost of poultry production).  Poultry diet represents 65 percent of maize, serves as source of energy and essential nutrients.  However, ordinary maize is poor in essential amino acids viz., lysine and tryptophan and provitamin-A, which play vital role in growth and development of chicken.  The crystalline amino acids are being supplemented in the dies to meet the requirement.  Breeding for improve the protein quality in maize has opened the avenues to think for no addition or minimal supplementation of crystalline amino acids in poultry diets.  Therefore, present experiment was carried out to determine the effect of feeding diets contained different maize hybrids to record the performance in Vanaraja chickens.
  • 3.
    Objective To study theeffect of QPM and provitamin-A enriched maize on performance in vanaraja chicken
  • 4.
    Conducted the experimentby feeding diets with 1. QPM 2. White maize 3. QPM + Provitamin-A In Vanaraja chicks
  • 5.
    Nutrient specific maize Whitemaize APQH9 Variety Provitamin A Lysine (%) APQH-9 10.2 µg/g 0.365 White maize 1.13 µg/g 0.253 QPM 2.47 µg/g 0. 391 Maize 2.24 µg/g 0.241
  • 6.
    Experimental Diets anddesign Diet M.E (Kcal/kg) 2800 Protein (%) 20.0 Lysine (%) 1.15 Methionine (%) 0.50 Calcium (%) 0.94 NPP (%) 0.4 175 birds × 5 diets × 7 replicates × 5 Chicks Diet 1 (DPR Maize) Diet 2 (Vivek Hyb 9) Diet 3 (APQH9) Diet 4 (QPM 9) Diet 5 (White maize) All the diets contained maize 61.76 kg/100 kg diet
  • 7.
    Effect of dietson Feed intake (g/birds) Experimental Diets 3 weeks (FI, g) 6 weeks (FI, g) 9 weeks (FI, g) Diet 1 DPR Maize 406.3 1257.4 2162.4 Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 419.1 1417.0 2333.3 Diet 3 APQH9 413.8 1269.3 2156.9 Diet 4 Vivek QPM 9 404.0 1334.0 2257.5 Diet 5 White Maize 396.5 1330.0 2246.2 N 7 7 7 SEM 5.78 20.7 26.1 P value 0.7 0.10 0.17 No effect on feed intake
  • 8.
    Effect of dietson body weight gain (BWG) Experimental Diets 3 weeks (BWG, g) 6 weeks (BWG, g) 9 weeks (BWG, g) Diet 1 DPR Maize 205.3 529.7 909.2 Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 213.0 586.9 956.1 Diet 3 APQH9 210.6 583.4 972.4 Diet 4 Vivek QPM 9 186.6 584.8 960.7 Diet 5 WM 191.4 563.6 962.0 N 7 7 7 SEM 4.98 9.93 11.7 P value 0.36 0.32 0.48 No sig. effect on BWG
  • 9.
    Effect of dietson FCR (FI/BWG) Experimental Diets 3 weeks FCR 6 weeks FCR 9 weeks FCR Diet 1 DPR Maize 2.023 2.181ab 2.361 Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 1.979 2.202a 2.404 Diet 3 APQH9 1.980 2.034c 2.339 Diet 4 Vivek QPM 9 2.182 2.131bc 2.357 Diet 5 WM 2.096 2.177ab 2.252 N 7 7 7 SEM 0.02 0.02 0.02 P value 0.08 0.01 0.08 Better FCR at 6 wks in APQH9 and QPM
  • 10.
    BWG and FCRat 6 weeks of age 1 2 3 4 5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 BWG FCR 500 550 600 650 Diets BWGFCR(FI/BWG) 1: DPR Maize, 2: Vivek Hyb9, 3: APQH9, 4: Vivek QPM 9, 5: White maize Effect of feeding different source of maize on performance in Vanaraja birds during 6 weeks of age
  • 11.
    Slaughter variables (g) RTCBreast Liver Ab. fat Gizzard Spleen Heart Bursa Diet 1 DPR Maize 760.4 152c 24.6 6.10abc 24.8 1.90 5.60 1.54 Diet 2 Vivek Hyb 9 828.8 168abc 25.9 7.60ab 26.9 3.16 5.88 1.60 Diet 3 APQH9 844.6 195ab 27.8 3.80bc 29.4 2.80 6.30 1.38 Diet 4 QPM 9 825.2 200a 23.5 2.70c 24.8 2.56 6.16 1.08 Diet 5 WM 877.3 166bc 31.6 8.08a 32.3 2.86 12.00 1.92 SEM 23.0 4.9 1.5 0.69 1.6 0.20 1.18 0.16 Pavlue 0.6 0.01 0.5 0.03 0.5 0.38 0.41 0.63 IMPROVED BREAST WEIGHT AND REDUCED ABDOMINAL FAT
  • 12.
    Breast muscle andabdominal fat content 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 5 7 9 Breast Ab fat 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 1: DPR Maize, 2: Vivek Hyb9, 3: APQH9, 4: Vivek QPM 9, 5: White maize Effect of feeding different maize on breast and abdominal fat in Vanaraja birdsg
  • 13.
    Conclusions 1. It isconcluded that the birds fed QPM and QPM + Provit A showed a better body weight gain and improved feed efficiency. 2. QPM and QPM + Provit A feeding considerably reduced the abdominal fat and increased breast muscle, which is desired attribute in chickens.