Effects of feeding varying levels of inoculated compost on productive performance, egg quality traits, organoleptic properties, and immune response of commercial layers

A study was conducted to evaluate the impact of varying dietary inoculated compost levels on production performance, egg quality traits, and immune response of white laying hens (LSL) during the peak production phase (28 to 40 weeks). For this purpose, a total of 270 birds were randomly distributed into 5 dietary groups with 6 replicates each in techno battery cages having 9 birds per replicate following completely randomized design. Experimental diets were comprised of an increasing level of inoculated compost (0, 3, 6, 9, and 12%) and each diet was balanced (iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous). The control group birds fed a commercial diet exhibited better egg production, egg weight, feed efficiency, and livability. Egg quality traits including shape index, shell strength, yolk index, and immune response against Newcastle disease virus did not differ significantly, although significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher Haugh unit and lighter yolk color was observed in the control group. A decreasing trend in egg sensory attributes has recorded an increase in the compost inclusion level in the diet. Furthermore, a marked decrease (p ≤ 0.05) was observed in eggs per dozen cost with higher compost inclusion level. It was concluded that compost can be utilized in layer feed up to 6% without any adverse effects on production performance, egg quality characteristics, and immune response of laying hens even at peak production.

PDF

___

1. Bolan NS, Szogi AA, Chuasavathi T, Seshadri B, Rothrock Jr MJ et al. Uses and management of poultry litter. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2010; 66: 673-698. doi: 10.1017/ S0043933910000656
2. Ramos-Elorduy J, González EA, Hernández AR, Pino JM. Use of Tenebrio molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to recycle organic wastes and as feed for broiler chickens. Journal of Economic Entomology 2002; 95 (1): 214-20. doi: 10.1603/0022- 0493-95.1.214
3. Borugadda VB, Goud VV. Biodiesel production from renewable feedstocks: Status and opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2012; 16 (7): 4763-4784. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.010
4. Tadele Y. Utilization of Farm animal organic waste as feeds for livestock and poultry. Advances in Life Science and Technology 2015; 32: 73-83.
5. Charnay F. Composting of urban wastes in developing countries: Elaboration of a methodology for a production of compost. PhD, University of Limoges, Paris, France; 2005. p. 229.
6. Turan NG. Nitrogen availability in composted poultry litter using natural amendments. Waste Management and Research 2009; 27: 19-24. doi: 10.1177/0734242X07087993
7. Rothrock MJ, Cook JR, Lovanh KL, Warren NJG, Sistani K. Development of a quantitative real-time PCR assay to target a novel group of ammonia producing bacteria found in poultry litter. Poultry Science 2008; 87: 1058-1067. doi: 10.3382/ ps.2007-00350
8. Line JE, Bailey LS. Effect of on-farm acidification treatments on Campylobacter and Salmonella populations in commercial broiler houses in northeast Georgia. Poultry Science 2006; 85: 1529-1534. doi: 10.1093/ps/85.9.1529
9. Kawata K, Nissato K, Shiota N, Hori T, Asada T et al. Variation in pesticide concentrations during composting of food waste and fowl droppings. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2006; 77: 391-398. doi: 10.1007/s00128-006- 1078-8
10. Yashim F, Onya S, Abdu Y, Adamu A. Castor fruits as a source of livestock feed. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Nigerian Society for Animal Production. 2007; pp. 336- 337.
11. Bukhari MKN, Mehmood S, Mahmud A, Khalique A, Javed K, et al. Physicochemical and Microbiological characteristic of dead bird and litter compost during winter season. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 207; 27: 1440-1447.
12. Wei Y, Zhao Y, Shi M, Cao Z, Lu Q, et al. Effect of organic acids production and bacterial community on the possible mechanism of phosphorus solubilization during composting with enriched phosphate-solubilizing bacteria inoculation. Journal of Biotechnology 2018; 247: 190-199. doi: 10.1016/j. biortech.2017.09.092
13. Zhou Y, Li C, Nges A, Liu J. The effects of pre-aeration and inoculation on solid-state anaerobic digestion of rice straw. Bioresource Technology 2017; 224: 78-86. doi: 10.1016/j. biortech.2016.11.104
14. Sarkar S, Banerjee R, Chanda S, Das P, Ganguly S, et al. Effectiveness of inoculation with isolated Geobacillus strains in the thermophilic stage of vegetable waste composting. Bioresource Technology 2010; 101: 2892-2895. doi: 10.1016/j. biortech.2009.11.095
15. Cribb J. The coming famine: the global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it. LA, USA: University of California Press; 2010.
16. Onu PN, Madubuike FN, Onu DO, Ekenyem BU. Performance and economic analysis of broiler starter chicks fed enzyme supplemented sheep manure-based diets. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science. 2011; 6 (1): 14-19.
17. Mushtaq M, Iqbal MK, Nadeem A, Khan RA. Integrated humification of poultry waste. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 2018; 53 (4): 283-288. doi: 10.3329/bjsir. v53i4.39192
18. Anderson KE, Tharrington JB, Curtis PA, Jones FT. Shell characteristics of eggs from historic strains of single comb White Leghorn chickens and the relationship of egg shape to shell strength. International Journal of Poultry Science 2004; 3: 17-19.
19. Ritz CW, Worley JW. Poultry Mortality Composting Management Guide. Bulletin 1266. The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service, Athens, GA, 2005.
20. Etches RJ. Reproduction in poultry. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 1996; pp. 267-397.
21. Lim J, Fujimaru T. Evaluation of the labeled hedonic scale under different experimental conditions. Food Quality and Preference. 2010; 21: 521-530.
22. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User’s Guide: Statistics. Version 9.1. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC; 2002-2003.
23. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 1955; 11: 1-42. doi: 10.2307/2527799
24. Gushterova A, Braikova D, Goshev I, Christov P, Tishinov K, et al. Degradation okeratin and collagen containing wasted by newly isolated thermos actinomycetes by alkaline hydrolysis. Applied Microbiology 2005; 40335-40340. doi: 10.1111/j.1472- 765x.2005.01692.x
25. Sekar V, Kannan M, Raju M, Sivakumar N, Dheeba B. Efficacy of poultry feather decomposition by native isolates of Bacillus sp. and it’s impact on mineralization. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Biological and Chemical Sciences 2015; 6: 852- 859.
26. Kshetri P, Ningthoujam S. Keratinolytic activities of alkaliphilic Bacillus sp. MBRL 575 from a novel habitat, limestone deposit site in Manipur, India. Springer Plus 2016; 595: 1-16. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2239-9
27. Sanghavi G, Patel H, Vaishnav D, Sheth, N. A novel alkaline keratinase from Bacillus subtilis DP1 with potential utility in cosmetic formulation. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2016; 87: 256-262. doi: 10.1016/j. ijbiomac.2016.02.067
28. Lasekan A, Abu Bakar F, Hashim D. Potential of chicken byproducts as sources of useful biological resources. Waste Management 2013; 33: 552-556. doi: 10.1016/j. wasman.2012.08.001
29. Nagarajan S, Eswaran P, Masilamani, P, Natarajan H. Chicken feather compost to promote the plant growth activity by using keratinolytic bacteria. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2018; 9: 531-538. doi: 10.1007/s12649-017-0004-0
30. Olson G, McBride J, Joe Shaw A, Lynd R. Recent progress in consolidated bioprocessing. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2012; 23: 396-405. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2011.11.026
31. Hasan F, Shah A, Hameed A. Industrial applications of microbial lipases. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 2006; 39: 235-251. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2005.10.016
32. Ahemad M, Kibret M. Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: current perspective. Journal of King Saud University - Science 2014; 26: 1-20. doi: 10.1016/j. jksus.2013.05.001
33. Khan MT, Mehmood S, Mahmud A, Javed K, Hussain J et al. Effect of dietary compost levels on production performance, egg quality and immune response of laying hens. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 2019; 29 (2): 402-411.
34. Nesheim MC. Evaluation of dehydrated poultry manure as a potential poultry feed ingredient. Proceedings, Waste Management Research, Cornell Agriculture Waste Management Conference 1972; p. 307.
35. Samli HE, Senkoylu N, Ozduven ML, Akyurek H, Agma A. Effects of poultry by product meal on laying performance, egg quality and storage stability. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 2006; 5: 6-9.
36. Flegal CJ, Sheppard CC, Dorin DA. The effect of continuous recycling and storage on nutrient quality of dehydrated poultry waste (DPW). In: Proceedings Cornell Agriculture Waste Management Conference 1972; pp. 295-300.
37. Geshlong M, Jonmohammadi A, Taghizadeh A, Rafat A. Effects of poultry by-product meal on performance, egg quality and blood parameters of commercial laying hens at the 42-52 weeks of age. Scientific Information Database 2011; 21: 29-42.
38. Odunsi AA, Akinwumi AO, Falana OI. Replacement value of hatchery waste meal for fish meal in the diet of laying Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). International Food Research Journal 2013; 20: 3107-3110.
39. Al-Harthi MA, El-Deek AA, Attia YA, Bovera F, Qota EM. Effect of different dietary levels of mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa) leaves and spice supplementation on productive performance, egg quality, lipid metabolism and metabolic profiles in laying hens. British Poultry Science 2009; 50: 700- 708. doi: 10.1080/00071660903202948
40. Senkoylu N, Samli HE, Akyurek H, Agma A, Yasar S. Performance and egg characteristics of laying hens fed diets incorporated with poultry by-product and feather meals. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2005; 14: 542-547. doi: 10.1093/japr/14.3.542
41. Mahmud A, Saima, Jabbar MA, Sahota AW, Hayat Z et al. Effect of feeding hatchery waste meal processed by different techniques on egg quality and production performance of laying hens. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 2015; 47: 1059-1066.
42. Abiola SS, Onunkwor EK. Replacement values of hatchery waste meal for fishmeal in layer diets. Bioresource Technology 2004; 95 (1): 103-106. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.001
43. Ademola SG, Sikiru AB, Akinwumi O, Olaniyi OF, Egbewande OO. Performance, yolk lipid, egg organoleptic properties and haematological parameters of laying hens fed cholestyramine and garlic oil. Global Veterinaria. 2011; 6: 542-546.
44. Awad F, Forrester A, Baylis M, Lemiere S, Jones R et al. Immune responses and interactions following simultaneous application of live Newcastle disease, infectious bronchitis and avian metapneumovirus vaccines in specific-pathogen free chicks. Research in Veterinary Science 2015; 98: 127-133. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2014.11.004
45. Marangon S, Busani L. The use of vaccination in poultry production. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office International Des Epizooties 2006; 26 (1): 265-274.
46. Miller PJ, Estevez C, Yu Q, Suarez DL, King DJ. Comparison of viral shedding following vaccination with inactivated and live Newcastle disease vaccines formulated with wild type and recombinant viruses. Avian Disease 2009; 53 (1): 39-49. doi: 10.1637/8407-071208-Reg.1
47. Gross WB. Effect of exposure to a short-duration sound on the stress response of chickens. Avian Diseases 1985; 34: 759-761. DOI: 10.2307/1591276
48. McFarlane JM, Curtis SE. Multiple concurrent stressors in chicks: effects on plasma corticosterone and the heterophil to lymphocyte ratio. Poultry Science 1989; 68: 522-527. doi: 10.3382/ps.0680522
49. Maxwell MH, Hocking PM, Robertson GW. Differential Leucocyte responses to various degrees of food restriction in broilers, turkeys and ducks. British Poultry Science 1992; 33(1): 177-187. doi: 10.1080/00071669208417455
50. Siegel HS. Immunological responses as indicators of stress. World’s Poultry Science Journal 1985; 41: 36-44. doi: 10.1079/ WPS19850003