Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article

The Effect of Transfer Battery Brooded Broilers on Conventional Rice Husk Littered Floor on Production Performance

K.N. Islam , M.S. Islam , R. Sultana , A.B.M. Khaleduzzaman , P. Gain and S.M. Bulbul
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail

Seventy-five battery brooded (up to 3 weeks) broilers were transferred on conventional rice husk littered floor (CRLF) and were reared up to 49 days of age. On the other hand, seventy-five broiler chicks were reared on CRLF from day-old to 49 days of age served as control. The body weight of the battery brooded birds at 28 days of age was significantly (P<0.01) higher than that of floor reared birds. Rearing battery brooded broiler on CRLF following transfer depressed growth rate (at 35 days of age) in comparison with CRLF birds, but at the end of the experiment, there were no significant differences in body weight gain. Non-significant differences were also observed in case of feed intake, feed conversion efficiency and dressed yield between two management systems at the end of the experiment. There were no birds having breast blister irrespective of management system. Mortality percentage was higher in case of CRLF than that of battery brooded birds on CRLF. Battery brooding up to 3 weeks of age saved space. Males had higher body weight (P<0.05) and shank weight (P<0.01) than those of females. From the present study it is evident that battery brooder can serve as a positive brooder, because after transfer from battery brooder to CRLF there is no negative effect on overall performance.

Related Articles in ASCI
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

  How to cite this article:

K.N. Islam , M.S. Islam , R. Sultana , A.B.M. Khaleduzzaman , P. Gain and S.M. Bulbul , 2004. The Effect of Transfer Battery Brooded Broilers on Conventional Rice Husk Littered Floor on Production Performance. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 7: 1410-1413.

DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2004.1410.1413



1:  BBS, 1995. Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp: 44

2:  Dexamir, A., I. Visan, G. Spiridon, A. Popescu and E. Inculet, 1980. Comparative results of rearing broilers on the floor and in battery cages. Poul. Abst., 2631: 339-339.

3:  Petitte, J.N., R.O. Hawes and R.W. Gerry, 1982. The influence of cage versus floor pen management of broiler breeder hens on subsequent performance of cage reared broilers. Poul. Abst., 2104: 253-253.

4:  Andrews, L.D., T. Whiting and L. Stamps, 1988. Performance of broilers on raised floors and litter. Poul. Sci., 67: 4-4.

5:  Bhargava, K.K., R.V. Rao and J.B. Oneil, 1975. Cage rearing of broilers on solid floor. Anim. Breed. Abst., 43: 307-307.

6:  Sirbu, M., C. Damian, D. Murarasu, V. Cimpoeru and D. Turcu, 1978. Influence of housing type on broiler productions. Anim. Breed. Abst., 46: 62-62.

7:  Toth, M., L. Csonka, J.I. Laslo and G. Boros, 1979. Results of rearing broiler in battery cages. Poul. Abst., 5A: 100-100.

8:  Andrews, L.D. and J.H. Whitemore, 1984. Chicks reared for the Cornish hen market in floor pens and cages. Poul. Sci., 63: 1524-1528.

9:  Hypes, W.A., R.A. Peterson, G.H. Carperter and W.T. Jones, 1991. Comparison of floor vs. high density cage brooding of broiler chicks. Poul. Sci., 70: 56-56.

10:  Aslam, A.M., E. Pervez, M.N. Asghar, A.A. Mian and V. Zoyfor, 1990. Effect of cage and floor rearing and their mutual transfer on the performance of broiler chicken. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 11: 192-196.

11:  Kaitazov, G., T. Stoyanchev, G. Boichev and T. Dechev, 1987. The performance of broilers reared on deep litter and in battery cages. Zhivotnov dni-Nauki., 24: 39-43.

12:  Souza, de R.N.G., A.P. de Dlodato, A.G.M. de Castro and P.C. de Silva, 1987. A combined floor and cage management production systems. Boletinde Islolustria Anim., 44: 229-248.

©  2022 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved