www.als-journal.com/ ISSN 2310-5380/ February 2021
Full Length Research Article
Advancements in Life Sciences – International Quarterly Journal of Biological Sciences
ARTICLE INFO
Date Received:
14/10/2019;
Date Revised:
15/10/2020;
Date Published:
25/02/2021;
Authors’ Affiliation:
Poultry Research Institute
Jaba, Mansehra - Pakistan
*Corresponding Author:
Naqash Khalid
Email:
dr.naqash092@gmail.com
How to Cite:
Khalid N, Ali MM, Ali Z, Amin
Y, Ayaz M. Comparative
Productive Performance of
two Broiler Strains in Open
Housing System. Adv. Life
Sci. 8(1): 124-127.
Keywords:
Broiler; Cobb-500; Ross-308;
Conventional broiler houses;
Mortality
Open Access
Comparative Productive Performance of two Broiler Strains in
Open Housing System
Naqash Khalid*, Malik Mohsin Ali, Zubair Ali, Yasir Amin, Muhammad Ayaz
Abstract
B
ackground: The present study was conducted to compare the growth performance and ultimately to
calculate the profitability of the two locally available commercial strains of broiler (Ross 308 and Cobb
500).
Methods: For the purpose of study, 900 number of day-old chicks (DOC) of each strain were purchased from
the local market. The birds were reared in conventional broiler house with the provision of standard
managemental conditions throughout the experimental period. The parameters recorded on weekly basis were
feed intake, body weight gain, feed conversion ratio (FCR) and mortality.
Results: Result shown that the total body weight of Cobb-500 and Ross-308 on 1st week was 207.40±14 gram
and 196.00±16 gram respectively and these result represented significant difference of weight gain (P<0.05) on
1st week of experiment among both the strains. From 2nd week of experiment till the last week (5th week) the
results shown the total body weight of Cob-500 and Ross-308 as 2180.4±38 gram and 2103.7±36 gram
respectively which was non-significantly different (P>0.05) among the strains. Furthermore, significant difference
of feed conversion ratio (FCR) was observed (P<0.05) among both the strains but from day 7 th till the market
age weekly FCR of Cob-500 was significantly higher (P<0.05) than Ross-308. Comparatively high mortality
(4.8±0.4%) was noticed in Ross broiler strain than Cobb broiler strain (3.7±0.4%).
Conclusion: It was concluded from the current study that the Cobb-500 is performing better in conventional open
housing system at high altitude than Ros-308.
als
Advancements in Life Sciences | www.als-journal.com | February 2021 | Volume 8 | Issue 2
124
You’re reading
Comparative Productive Performance of two Broiler Strains in Open Housing System
Introduction
For decades, those involved in the production chain of
broiler chickens have been concerned with the potential
for growth and body conformation of poultry, since these
characteristics are related to the efficiency and
profitability of the poultry sector. Genetic enhancements
have resulted in the current broiler chicken strains, which
are characterized by faster weight gain and better feed
conversion [1]. Consumers demand of poultry products
is on a constant increase, hence, influencing the
commercial poultry husbandry to make significant
changes [2] ultimately resulting in overall progress of the
industry [3]. The broiler industry can be applied under an
extensive variety of ecological conditions and can often
be combined with other farm initiatives [4].
Poultry industry is continuously advancing by
improvement of genetic potential of new broiler strains to
provide the high-quality with low-cost protein
requirements of the human population worldwide [5].
Intensive selection in broilers has focused during the
previous 5 decades, on post hatch growth rate and feed
conversion to achieve increased meat yield. Hence, all
the broiler strains do not have similar physiology or
development curves, or both. Embryonic developmental
parameters are known to be related to the post hatch
performance of broilers. Though, genetic line differences
or strain with regard to embryo physiological parameters
and juvenile growth have received little attention [6].
Amongst the meat producing broiler strains, Ross and
Cobb are the most extensively produced worldwide.
Sterling et al., [7] demonstrated that Cobb broilers have
better growth rate with a better feed conversion ratio than
the Ross strain. It is not clear if the different post hatch
performances amongst the strains are also a reflection
of their embryo physiological and hatching parameters
[6]. The focus of breeding companies, in the last decade
has been to select for higher meat production and
improved FCR. Different profit-maximizing feeding
programs and determining nutrient requirements for
each genotype seems impossible and may result in
redundancy. A simpler approach would be to first
determine if differences in response exist among
genotypes without determining a requirement [7].
Over the past three decades, improvement in feed
conversion ratio (FCR- feed consumed per unit body
weight) of broiler chickens has been quite surprising.
There is still significant within- and between-strain
variation in traits such as growth and feed conversion,
despite the major improvements and years of intense
selection. Broiler performance objectives, a male broiler
of 2 kg weight should achieve an FCR of approximately
1.54. This objective is based on the performance of top
quartile clients around the world. It is surely achievable
with the good health, nutritional and management related
contributions. There is a remarkable amount of variation
in measured FCRs in the field. Within Aviagen’s
database of field performance, adjusted FCRs can vary
by up to 50 points from one operation to another. This
variation proves that in any one flock, the influence of
management, nutrition and disease can far exceed the
influence of genetics alone. Havenstein et al., [8]
assessed that genetic selection was responsible for 85–
90% of the enhancement in broiler growth and feed
efficiency. According to his judgment, the other 10– 15%
was due to nutrition. If we assume that in the best-case
circumstances, the genetics companies give us a total of
30 points enhancement over the next 10 years, we could
hope for an additional improvement of 4.5 points due to
advances in nutrition [9].
Methods
The current study was carried out from the month of July
to August 2019 at Poultry Research Institute Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Mansehra. A total of 900-day old chicks of
each breed (Cobb and Ross) were purchased from the
local market. Upon arrival at the Poultry Research
Institute, the chicks were divided into 02 groups, A and
B, Cobb-500 breed in group A and Ross-308 breed in
group B. The group A and B were further divided into
three replicas A-1, A-2, A3and B1, B2, B3 A-3 having 300
chicks in each replica. Stocking density of 17 birds/m2
was given to both groups, standard management
conditions (temperature, humidity, and light intensity) as
mentioned in Table No.1 were provided to both the
groups throughout the experimental period. The
composition of the ration is mentioned in Table No. 2, adlibitum feeding, and watering was ensured throughout
the experimental period to both of the groups.
At day first of the experiment, body weight of all chicks
was recorded in each group and the chicks were reared
in replicates of the groups. Feed intake, body weight gain
and feed conversion ratio were recorded at weekly
intervals. The recoded data was statistically analyzed
through student t-test to evaluate the significance
difference between studied groups at p<0.05).
Indication
Temperature (°F)
Humidity (%)
Light intensity (lux)
1
95
5565
30
4
90
5565
30
7
85
5565
10
Age (days)
14
21
80
75
606070
70
10
10
28
70
6070
10
36
70
70
10
Table 1: Environmental Condition
For lighting, incandescent light bulbs were used in the
house similar for all the groups. Duration of light or
photoperiod was age dependent, during first two days a
continuous lightening of 24 hours was provided with light
intensity of 30 lux. Further until the 4 day of the chicks,
the lightening schedule was of 23 hours per day with the
light intensity of 30 lux. From day 5th to 28th day, the
lightening schedule was of 18 hours per day with the light
intensity of 10 lux. From day 29th to the day of
slaughtering day, the lightening schedule was of 23
hours per day with the light intensity of 10 lux. The time
period when the lightening period was of 18 hours per
day, the 6 hours darkness period was divided into two
rounds of 3 hours, after every 9 hours lightening period.
Feed and water were provided ad libitum. Live
performance parameters like Feed intake, Weight gain
and FCR were recoded separately for each group on
weekly basis. Feed intake was measured by weighed the
given ad-libitum feeding in morning, and weight the
als
Advancements in Life Sciences | www.als-journal.com | February 2021 | Volume 8 | Issue 2
125
You’re reading
Comparative Productive Performance of two Broiler Strains in Open Housing System
refused feed in evening. Feed intake was calculated by
subtracting refused feed from the total feed offered.
There was used a three-phase nutrition program with
starter feed (mash) from day 1 to day 10th, grower feed
used from day 11th to day 24th (crumbs) and finisher feed
(crumbs) from day 25th to the day of market the broiler.
The specification of the feed offered is given in the table
2. Flock was vaccinated similar for both groups as the
schedule given in the table 3.
Specification
Metabolized Energy
(kcal/kg)
Crude Protein (%)
Crude Fat (%)
Crude Fiber (%)
Lysine (%)
Calcium (%)
Phosphorus (%)
Sodium (%)
Chloride (%)
Vitamin A (µL/kg)
Vitamin D3 (µL//kg)
Vitamin E (mg/kg)
Starter
3026
Grower
3160
Finisher
3250
21
6.30
03
1.42
1.12
0.51
0.18
0.24
15000
5000
80
20
6.60
03
1.24
0.93
0.45
0.17
0.21
12500
5000
60
19
7
03
1.02
0.86
0.43
0.17
0.21
11250
5000
55
Table 2: Characteristics of administered feed
Age
(Days)
1
7
12
21
Vaccine
Vaccine Type
Application Route
Newcastle Disease +
Infectious Bronchitis
ND + H9
IBD
ND Lasota
Live
Eye Drop
Killed
Live
Live
Subcutaneous
Drinking Water
Drinking Water
Table 3: Vaccination schedule
Results
Body weight (g/bird):
Statistical analysis of obtained data regarding body
weight of Cobb and Ross broiler strains indicated that
there was significant difference (p<0.05) in body weight
between both strains on 1st day up to the 4th week, while
non-significant difference (P>0.05) was recorded on 5th
week of experiment. The body weight of Cobb broiler
was recorded between 47.00±4g (arrival weight) to
2180.4±38g from 1st day to 5th week and the body weight
of Ross broiler was recorded between 44.00±3g (arrival
weight) to 2103.7±36g from 1st day to 5th week. Slightly
high body weight was observed for Cobb broiler than the
Ross broiler (Table 4).
Week
Cobb
Ross
P-value
Birth Weight
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
47.00±4
207.40±14
540.50±18
1051.3±21
1621.8±32
2180.4±38
44.00±3
196.00±16
521.80±19
1019.2±22
1569.4±35
2103.7±36
<0.05
<0.05
>0.05
>0.05
>0.05
>0.05
Table 4: Comparative weekly accumulative body weight (g/bird)
of Cobb and Ross broiler strains
Feed intake (g/bird):
Statistical analysis of obtained data regarding feed
intake of Cobb and Ross broiler strains indicated that
there was significant difference (P<0.05) in feed intake
between both strains throughout the experimental period
(1st to 5th week). The feed intake of Cobb broiler was
recorded between 182±7g (in 1st week) to 1158±29g (in
5th week) from 1st to 5th week and the feed intake of Ross
als
broiler was recorded between 181±6g (in 1st week) to
1156±28g (in 5th week) from 1st to 5th week (Table 5).
Week
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Cobb
182±7
378±12
574±16
784±21
1158±29
Ross
181±6
379±11
572±15
782±22
1156±28
P-value
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Table 5: Comparative weekly feed intake (g/bird) of Cobb and
Ross broiler strains
Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR):
Statistical analysis of obtained data regarding FCR of
Cobb and Ross broiler strains indicated that there was
significant difference (P<0.05) in FCR between both the
strains throughout the experimental period (7th to 36th
day). The FCR of Cobb broiler was calculated between
1.13 (1st week) to 2.07 (5th week) and the FCR of Ross
broiler was calculated between 1.19 (1st week) to 2.16
(5thweek). The cumulative FCR of Cobb-500 was 1.41
and Ross-308 was 1.46. Slightly better FCR was
recorded for Cobb broiler than the Ross broiler (Table 6).
Week
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Cumulative FCR
Cobb
1.13±0.03
1.13±0.02
1.12±0.02
1.37±0.03
2.07±0.04
1.41±0.03
Ross
1.19±0.03
1.16±0.02
1.15±0.02
1.42±0.03
2.16±0.04
1.46±0.03
P-value
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Table 6: Comparative weekly FCR of Cobb and Ross broiler strains
Body weight gain (g/bird):
Statistical analysis of obtained data regarding weight
gain of Cobb and Ross broiler strains indicated that there
was significant difference (p<0.05) in weight gain
between both strains on throughout entire experimental
period (1st week to 5th day). The weight gain of Cobb
broiler was ranges between 160.4g (in 1st week) to
558.6g (in 5th week) and the weight gain of Ross broiler
was ranges between 152g (in 1st week) to 534.3g (in 5th
week). Slightly more weight gain was recorded for Cobb
broiler than the Ross broiler (Table 7).
Day
7
14
21
28
36
Cobb
160.4±7
333.1±12
510.5±14
570.8±17
558.6±21
Ross
152±6
325.8±11
497.4±13
550.2±18
534.3±22
P-value
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Table 7: Comparative weekly weight gain (g/bird) of Cobb and
Ross broiler strains
Mortality (%):
Statistical analysis of obtained data regarding mortality
percentage of Cobb and Ross broiler strains indicated
that there was significant difference (p<0.05) in mortality
percentage between both strains. Comparatively high
mortality (4.8±0.4%) was noticed in Ross broiler strain
than Cobb broiler strain (3.7±0.4%).
Discussion
In our study high body weight, more feed intake, better
FCR, more weight gain and lowest mortality were
observed for Cobb broiler than the Ross broiler. These
results are closely related with the findings of Pascalau
et al., [10], who reported that the productive parameters
Advancements in Life Sciences | www.als-journal.com | February 2021 | Volume 8 | Issue 2
126
You’re reading
Comparative Productive Performance of two Broiler Strains in Open Housing System
followed in the study indicated a superiority of Cobb 500
hybrid, which had greater body weight, higher weight
gain with better feed conversion index. Marcu et al., [11]
obtained 409.00g body weight in Ross 308 hybrid at 14
days and 411.00 g in Cobb 500 hybrid (411.00 g), at 35
days. Marcu et al., [11] obtained a final body weight of
2,598 g and 2,648 g in Ross 308 hybrid and Cobb 500
hybrid respectively. These data may be different
because of variation in starter and grower feed. When
the chickens were reared in cages as described by
Hascik et al., [12], the average body weight was
significantly reduced such as: in Ross 308 hybrid at 7
days (106.25 g), at 14 days (296.45 g) and at 35 days
(1,644.70 g); in Cobb 500 hybrid at 7 days with (110.45
g), at 14 days with (301.00 g) and at 35 days with
(1,629.15 g). Ciurescu and Grosu, [13], during 1-42 days,
obtained better results for average daily gain in Ross 308
hybrid (58.05 g/day) and in Cobb 500 hybrid (56.55
g/day), while Marcu et al., [11], for the same time-period,
obtained the best results in Ross 308 hybrid with 60.85
g/day and in Cobb 500 hybrid with 62.05 g/day. While
Marcu et al., [11] obtained significant differences in Cobb
500 hybrid (1.676 kg feed/kg gain) and in Ross 308
hybrid (1.770 kg feed/kg gain). There found a
significance difference (p<0.05) in FCR between both the
strains of the broilers in the current experiment. These
findings had an agreement with the results of Cheema et
al., [14] in which they suggest that there is an agedependent difference in growth performance between
the lines used in this study. Different results were found
in a study conducted by Strakova et al., [15] in which at
the end of the fattening period (day 40) the average
weight of the Ross hybrid broiler chickens was
statistically significantly (P≤0.05) higher than of the Cobb
hybrid (2.40±0.029 kg compared to 2.31± 0.028 kg). It
was concluded from the current study that the Cobb-500
is performing better in conventional open housing
system than Ros-308 in productive and mortality
percentage at high altitude. In local condition, disease
protection [16], FCR and housing are the top contributing
factors when if comes to poultry production.
Authors' Contributions
Naqash Khalid conducted the experiment, data
collection, data analysis and write-up of the research
article. Malik Mohsin Ali contributed in the Management
of the flock and data collection. Zubair Ali and Yasir Amin
contributed in the study design and management of the
research flock. Muhammad Ayaz supervised the
experiment, helped in study design, guided in data
collection and data analysis.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Do Nascimento DCN, Dourado LRB, De Siqueira JC, De Lima
SBP, da Silva MdCM, et al. Productive features of broiler chickens
in hot weather: effects of strain and sex. Semina: Ciências
Agrárias, (2018); 39(2): 731-746.
Vercoe J, Fitzhugh H, Von Kaufmann R. Livestock productions
systems beyond 2000. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal
Sciences, (2000); 13(Supl S): 411-419.
Mahmood MS, Sabir R. Preparation and evaluation of avian
influenza (H9) and Newcastle disease (thermostable i-2 strain)
bivalent vaccine for commercial poultry. Agrobiological Records,
(2021) 3: 17-23.
Singh VP, Sharma V, Sidhu M, Kingra H. Broiler Production in
Punjab—An Economic Analysis §. Agricultural Economics
Research Review, (2010); 23(2): 315-324.
Talebi A, Asri-Rezaei S, Rozeh-Chai R, Sahraei R. Comparative
studies on haematological values of broiler strains (Ross, Cobb,
Arbor-acres and Arian). International journal of poultry science,
(2005); 4(8): 573-579.
Tona K, Onagbesan O, Kamers B, Everaert N, Bruggeman V, et al.
Comparison of Cobb and Ross strains in embryo physiology and
chick juvenile growth. Poultry Science, (2010); 89(8): 1677-1683.
Sterling K, Pesti G, Bakalli R. Performance of different broiler
genotypes fed diets with varying levels of dietary crude protein and
lysine. Poultry Science, (2006); 85(6): 1045-1054.
Havenstein G, Ferket P, Qureshi M. Growth, livability, and feed
conversion of 1957 versus 2001 broilers when fed representative
1957 and 2001 broiler diets. Poultry science, (2003); 82(10): 15001508.
Raheel IAR, Orabi A, El Masry A. Natural herbs CLEANACTIV®;
immune-modulator, health activator and growth promoter in broiler
chickens. International Journal of Veterinary Sciences, (2019);
8(4): 267-270.
Pascalau S, Cadar M, Raducu C, Marchis Z. Evaluation of
productive performances in Ross 308 and Cobb 500 hybrids.
Animal Biology & Animal Husbandry, (2017); 9(1): 22-27.
Marcu A, Vacaru-Opriş I, Dumitrescu G, Ciochina LP, Marcu A, et
al. The influence of the genotype on economic efficiency of broiler
chickens growth. Scientific Papers Animal Science and
Biotechnologies, (2013); 46(2): 339-346.
Hascik P, Kacaniova M, Mihok M, Pochop J, Benczova E, et al.
Performance of various broiler chicken hybrids fed with
commercially produced feed mixtures. International Journal of
Poultry Science, (2010); 9(11): 1076-1082.
Ciurescu G, Grosu H. Efficiency of feed utilization by different
hybrids of broiler chicks. Archiva Zootechnica, (2011); 14(2): 36.
Cheema MA, Qureshi M, Havenstein G. A comparison of the
immune profile of commercial broiler strains when raised on
marginal and high protein diets. International Journal of Poultry
Science, (2003); 2: 300-312.
Strakova E, Suchý P, Navratil P, Karel T, Herzig I. Comparison of
the content of crude protein and amino acids in the whole bodies of
cocks and hens of Ross 308 and Cobb 500 hybrids at the end of
fattening. Ile, (2015); 10(9.2): 8-9.
Awaad MHH, Elmenawey MA, Afify MA, Zouelfekar SA, Mohamed
FF, et al. The impact of high stocking density and saccharomyces
cerevisiae boulardii on productive performance, intestinal
microbiota and gut integrity of broiler chickens. International
Journal of Veterinary Sciences, (2019); 8(4): 362-370.
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0
International License. To read the copy of this
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/bylicense please visit:
nc/4.0/
Competing Interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided
by Poultry Research Institute Jaba, Mansehra to conduct
this research study.
als
Advancements in Life Sciences | www.als-journal.com | February 2021 | Volume 8 | Issue 2
127