Effect Of Acacia Nilotica On The Growth Performance Of Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the effect of Acacia nilotica on the growth performance of broiler chickens. The experiment was conducted at the Poultry Husbandry Department, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam. Different treatment groups were established with varying levels of Acacia nilotica pod supplementation (0%, 3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%) along with a fixed enzyme complex dosage (100 g/kg). A total of 300 broiler chickens were purchased and grouped accordingly. The housing and management practices followed standard protocols, including appropriate temperature maintenance, adequate lighting, and routine vaccinations. Various parameters, such as feed intake, water intake, live body weight, feed conversion ratio (FCR), carcass weight, dressing percentage, and relative organ weights, were recorded and analyzed statistically. The cumulative weight gain of broiler chickens was significantly affected by Acacia nilotica supplementation. The control group (T0) showed the highest cumulative weight gain (2058.33±20.85 g/b), while the group supplemented with 12% Acacia nilotica (T12) exhibited the lowest cumulative weight gain (1756.67±14.33 g/b). Feed intake was also significantly influenced by Acacia nilotica supplementation. The control group (T0) had the highest feed intake (4003.75±20.14 g/b), whereas the group supplemented with 12% Acacia nilotica (T12) had the lowest feed intake (3523.33±27.78 g/b). The feed conversion ratio (FCR), which reflects feed efficiency, was significantly affected by Acacia nilotica supplementation. The group supplemented with 6% Acacia nilotica (T6) showed the lowest FCR (1.90±0.02), indicating better conversion of feed into body weight. In contrast, the group supplemented with 12% Acacia nilotica (T12) had the highest FCR (2.00±0.03), suggesting a less efficient conversion of feed to body weight. Carcass weight, representing the weight of the birds after slaughter, was significantly influenced by Acacia nilotica supplementation. The control group (T0) had the highest carcass weight (1386.75±6.23 g/b), while the group supplemented with 12% Acacia nilotica (T12) had the lowest carcass weight (1136.61±16.49 g/b). The dressing percentage, which indicates the proportion of carcass weight to live weight, was significantly affected by Acacia nilotica supplementation. The group supplemented with 6% Acacia nilotica (T6) showed the highest dressing percentage (68.55±0.29%), while the group supplemented with 12% Acacia nilotica (T12) had the lowest dressing percentage (64.69±0.43%). The significantly (p<0.05) lower fat pad (34.96±1.95%) was noted in T12, where the birds were supplemented with 12% Acacia nilotica along with a 100 mg/kg enzyme complex, compared to T9 (37.36±2.01%), T6 (40.08±2.43%), and T3 (41.39±2.27%), respectively. These groups received supplementation with 9%, 6% and 3% Acacia nilotica, respectively, along with the same 100 mg/kg enzyme complex. While, the fat pad (44.11±1.91%) were recorded higher in T0 group (control). Acacia nilotica supplementation had varying effects on the growth performance of broiler chickens. While lower levels of supplementation (3% and 6%) resulted in improved weight gain, feed intake, and feed conversion ratio, higher levels (9% and 12%) showed negative effects on these parameters. These findings highlight the importance of optimizing the dosage of Acacia nilotica supplementation in broiler chicken diets to achieve optimal growth performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".