Results regarding the average live body weight (g/b) are presented in Table 2. Results indicate that the birds in group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C possessed 196.25, 192.24, 186.98, 190.00 and 190.44g/b average live body respectively. Statistically non-significant (p>0.05) difference was found among the all groups. Feed intake (g/b) of
Bambusicola thoracicus were recorded and reported in Table 2. Average feed intake of birds in group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C was found as 202.13, 211.98, 230.11, 212.25 and 207.11g/b, respectively. Maximum feed were consumed by the birds reared under group B1 followed by B2, A2 (control) and C and minimum by the birds in group A1. Statistically, significant (p<0.05) difference between groups B1 and A1 was seen, while non-significant (p>0.05) difference was seen in groups A2, B2 and C. Feed conversion ratio of birds were recorded and results are depicted in Table 2. The best FCR was seen in the group A1 (1.04) followed by group C (1.09), group A2 (1.10), group B2 (1.12) and group B1 (1.24). Statistically non-significant (p>0.05) difference was seen among all groups against FCR.
Regarding carcass weight (g/b) of
Bambusicola thoracicus results are given in Table 2. Average carcass weight of
Bambusicola thoracicus in group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C was recorded as 98.34, 99.57, 90.6, 92.10 and 96.17, respectively. Maximum carcass weight was recorded in group A2 followed by A1, C, B2 while minimum carcass weight was seen in group B1. Carcass weight for group B1 and B2 and C significantly varied from one another but group A1 and A2 showed no considerable difference. Dressing percentage of
Bambusicola thoracicus were calculated and results are given in the Table 2. Average dressing percentage of
Bambusicola thoracicus in group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C was found as 50.47%, 52.02%, 48.92%, 49.16% and 50.52%, respectively. Higher dressing percentage was seen in group A2 followed by C, A1 and B2, while lower was observed in group B1. Statistically, significant difference was observed in group A2 compared to other groups, however among group A1, B1, B2 and C non-significant difference was seen.
Average egg production percentage of
Bambusicola thoracicus were recorded and presented in Table 2. Average egg production of
Bambusicola thoracicus in group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C was found as 50.1, 48.8, 70.24, 69.22 and 53.85%, respectively during the study period of 13 weeks. Higher egg production was seen in the birds reared under B1 followed by B2, C (control) and A1, while lower egg production in birds reared under A2. Concerning egg length (mm) results indicated group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C having 32.11, 33.11, 30.22, 30.11 and 30.11 mm, respectively egg length. Longer egg length was observed in group A1 followed by A2, B1 and B2, while smaller was seen in group C (control). Average egg width of
Bambusicola thoracicus in group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C was recorded as 24.89, 23.8, 25.15, 24.4 and 24.1mm, respectively (Table 2). Further, higher egg width was found in group B1 followed by A1, B2 and C, while lower egg width was for group A2. Statistically, there were considerable difference between A2 and B1 groups and non-significant difference between A1, B2 and C groups, correspondingly. Average egg weight in group A1, A2, B1, B2 and C was recorded as 9.48, 9.51, 11.33, 10.11, 9.31g, respectively. Moreover, egg weight was higher in group B1 followed by B2, C and A2 and lower in group A1. Statistically, no significant difference was seen among the groups (Table 2).
In present study, higher average body weight of
Bambusicola thoracicus were recorded when light intensity of 80 luxes for 8 hours duration was provided and however on the photoperiod of 5 luxes for 16 hours duration lower average body weight was observed. These finding are in agreement with studies of
Riber, 2015 and
Pieter et al., 2013 who reported that the body weight gain rates in birds affects by the photoperiod primarily due to energy expenditure and intake by the
Bambusicola thoracicus.
Puigcerver et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2010 also reported relevant types of findings when light regimes restriction in chicken was studied. Live body weight, carcass weight and hen eggs production were considerably influenced with the different light regimes. Further, in another study, feed intake was found maximum at the photoperiod of 5 luxes for 16 hours and minimum at the light intensity of 20 luxes for 8 hours.
Benson et al., 2013 also reported same kinds of findings when studied broilers in relation to light. They found that the light of energy savers enhances the broiler production. Similarly,
Freitas et al., 2005 reported that the sufficient light effect in poultry house and birds’ growth. FCR was recorded better in group A1 followed by group C, A2, B2 and B1. Current findings regarding the FCR did not match the results of
Lucian et al., 2012 who otherwise reported no significant differences for broiler feed efficiency against light schedules. Changes in the result may because species difference, different size of experimental birds. Concerning carcass weight results of present study possess similarity with (
George, 2013) who found that the 16 h-lighting decreased stress in broilers and thus allow increase of carcass weight.
Bayram and Ozkan, (2010) found that carcass weight declined with decrease of photoperiod, the effect being more influential in female quails. These finding also support the current study. Further, egg production of
Bambusicola thoracicus were observed maximum when photoperiod of 15 luxes for 20 hours duration was provided and minimum was seen when light intensity of 6 luxes for 16 hours duration was provided. In support to current findings
Blatchford, 2012 and
Change et al., 2009 report that the reduction in day length delays the onset of sexual maturity and may even terminate egg laying in birds. Findings of
Puigcerver et al., 2007 also support the present study. They reported that the reduction in light duration result in reduced egg production and laying sequence length.