INFLUENCE OF FEED TYPE ON PRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE OF COMMERCIAL LAYING HENS IN BAUCHI METROPOLIS

Authors

  • Sulaiman, R.
  • Abubakar, M. M.
  • Abdullahi, U. S.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59331/njaat.v4i2.690

Keywords:

Formulated diets, Layer, Chickens and Performance

Abstract

The trial was conducted for a period of 14 weeks to determine the influence of feed type on productive performance of commercial laying hens in Bauchi Metropolis. The treatments consisted of T1 (Maize, Wheat Offal), T2 (Maize, Sorghum, Wheat Offal), T3 (Sorghum, Rice Offal), T4 (Maize, Wheat Offal, Rice Offal), T5 (Maize, Rice Offal), T6 (Sorghum, Wheat Offal), T7 (Sorghum, Wheat Offal, Rice Offal), T8 (Maize, Sorghum, Wheat Offal) A total of 384 Agrited Lohmann Brown laying hens managed in a battery cage system and grouped into eight (8) feed and 48 birds per treatment were used. In each treatment, the birds were distributed into three (3) tiers (16 birds per tier) of upper, middle and lower tiers of the battery cage that served as replication in a completely randomized design. Feed and water were supplied ad-libitum. Data generated were analyzed using General Linear Model Analysis for hen day egg production and Univariate Analysis of Variance for feed intake and feed conversion ratio. hen-day egg production was highest in T4 (65.48%) and T3 (65.43%) and the lowest in T1 (64.50) and T2 (64.41%); p<0.001. Feed intake (g/day) ranges from 108.77kg to 107.67kg with birds on T4 consuming more feed than the other. Feed conversion ratio was highest (p<0.001) in T1 (2.64) and T7 (2.64) and lowest in T3 (2.59) and T8 (2.88). It can be concluded that different feed type had influence on productive performance of commercial laying hens.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2024-06-29

How to Cite

Sulaiman, R., Abubakar, M. M., & Abdullahi, U. S. (2024). INFLUENCE OF FEED TYPE ON PRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE OF COMMERCIAL LAYING HENS IN BAUCHI METROPOLIS. Nigerian Journal of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology, 4(2), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.59331/njaat.v4i2.690