Ten growth and feed efficiency reasons to Incorporate Raw and Roasted Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in Broiler Chicken

Ten growth and feed efficiency reasons to Incorporate Raw and Roasted Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in Broiler Chicken

Sunita, Prakash Chandra, D.P. Tiwari* and Awadhesh Kishore**
RBS College, Bichpuri-283105, Agra INDIA
*GB PUAT, Pantnagar-263145 (U.K.) INDIA
**Sarvoday Mahavidyalaya, Chaumuhan-281406, Mathura INDIA

The objectives of present study were to study the effect of incorporation of raw and roasted chickpea (Cicer arietinum) on growth, feed efficiency of broiler chicken. Intake of feed, dry matter, energy and crude protein increased but biological value decreased when the level of incorporation of chickpea was increased from 10 to 15%. Intake, metabolizability and retention of nutrients were high in winter season. Incorporation of raw chickpea in broiler feed decreased intake of feed and dry matter and retention of crude protein.

Keywords:
Biological, Broiler chicken, Chickpea, Cicer arietinum, Crude protein, Dry matter, Feed efficiency, Growth, Intake, Metabolizability, Metabolizable energy, Nutrients, Nutrition, Poultry, Rainy, Research raw, Retention, Roasted, Season, Summer, Winter.

The objectives of present study were to study the effect of incorporation of raw and roasted chickpea (Cicer arietinum) at the rate of which 0%, 5%, 10% and 15% on growth, feed efficiency of broiler chicken.

1. Incorporation of chickpea upto 0, 5 and 10 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on feed intake but when the level was further increased upto 15 per cent, the daily feed intake reduced. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of raw feed in broiler feed decreased daily feed intake in comparison to that due to incorporation of control and roasted feed.

2. Incorporation of chickpea upto 0, 5 and 10 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on dry matter intake (DMI) but as the level was further increased upto 15 per cent, the DMI reduced. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of raw feed in broiler feed decreased DMI in comparison to that due to incorporation of control and roasted feed.

3. Incorporation of chickpea upto 0, 5 and 10 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on energy intake but as the level was further increased upto 15 per cent, energy intake reduced. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Energy intake remained unchanged due to incorporation of raw replicates.

4. Incorporation of chickpea upto 0, 5 and 10 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on crude protein intake but as the level was further increased upto 15 per cent, the crude protein intake reduced. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of raw replicates could not change this parameter.

5. Incorporation of chickpea from 0 to 15 per cent in broiler feed had no effect on crude protein metabolizability. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of three replicates could not affect crude protein metabolizability in broilers.

6. Incorporation of chickpea upto 0, 5 and 10 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on energy metabolizability but as the level was further increased upto 15 per cent, the energy metabolizability reduced. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of three replicates could not affect energy metabolizability in broilers.

7. Incorporation of chickpea at 0 and 5 per cent and 10 and 15 per cent in broiler feed were differed with regard to dry matter retention. Increasing level of incorporation of chickpea declined the parameter in comparison to that in control. Dry matter retention was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of raw feed in broiler feed decreased dry matter retention in comparison to that due to incorporation of control and roasted feed.

8. Incorporation of chickpea from 0, 5 to 15 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on energy retention. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of raw replicates remained unaffected in this respect.

9. Incorporation of chickpea at 0 and 5 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on crude protein retention but when chickpea was incorporated at the rate of 15 per cent, it was declined in comparison to that in control. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of raw feed in broiler feed decreased crude protein retention in comparison to that due to incorporation of control and roasted feed.

10. Incorporation of chickpea upto 0, 5 and 10 per cent in broiler feed had no impact on biological value but as the level was further increased upto 15 per cent, the biological value reduced. The parameter was high in winter season in comparison to that in summer. Incorporation of raw replicates remained unaffected in this respect.

Conclusion:

Intake of feed, dry matter, energy and crude protein increased but biological value decreased when the level of incorporation of chickpea was increased from 10 to 15%. Intake, metabolizability and retention of nutrients were high in winter season. Incorporation of raw chickpea in broiler feed decreased intake of feed and dry matter and retention of crude protein.