ABSTRACT 

Population in the third world cotinines like Nigeria has riot been mai died

by growth with agricultural productivity especially in the area of animal production has

led to hunger and serious malnutrition among the people ( lgbediuh. I 993: Weaver, I 9)4:

Jkachukwu Li at., 2002). To correct the short fall in aiiiiiial protein intake of the populace.

lien' is iced CC mieiisify livstuck production vhiiehi is chiiracter ed by lCitI uui of

production due to cost of finislìed feed that accounts for over 70 percent of the production

cost (Adcgcye and I)ittoh, 1982, Ogunfowora, 1984; Oluyemi, 1984).

A ii average Nigerian consumes an average of I 5g of animal protein per day as again

54g per capita per day in America and Furopc. Ihis is grossly inadequate and OSCS a thu eat

of serious malnutrition (Jennings, 1974; FAO, 1986; FA(), 1 989). ( 'urrent high cost of

poultry products makes it impossible for an average man in the country to consume adequate

quailtity of aniiial protein. the 1)11cc increases arc a reflection 1)1 corresponding high cost of

1eds.

I ligh cost (Cl feed results in low production and short supply of poultry products and

as a result a great number of' poultry farmers are fust folding up. Feed restriction is a

nianagciucnt technique iii poultry production involving (lie quantitative adjustment (Cf the

ration offered to the birds (Monsi and Ayodele, 1990). It is aimed at achieving greater

ioducton efficiency without inflicting severe adverse effect on the birds' ntitrit ioiial

requirements. For poultry production to be meaningful and sustainable it is very necessary to

find the means of reducing the cost of feeding. To achieve this goal involve finding

alternative ficd management, thus, feed restriction becomes imperative. 'l'his investigation is,

estrictroji as an liiterri;Iti\e To liriFesTi (ted a((r55 To t'ed is wo: tli option ThaT Irucils To he

iii \ es t I gIt e. I.

coiilinuc(t in (lie same treat iiients as in period I I while under the post restriction period

a! I (lie groups were reverted, Oil ti'eatinent t)aSiS to wi li/'i!un, fediiig. I)uriiig the ciiti IC

period III one egg per replicate was collected three times j)CF week for egg quality

nid ices. During rearing (2O1 \vcek - point - of - lay (P01 ,) birds under 20% feed

restriction had the lowest (P<0.05) feed intake lìile birds under (UI li/iiium feeding had

(lie highest (P'0.05) Iced intake. Weight gain, teed conversion ratio (ICR), bod' veie,hit

were not significantly afiected (P>0.05). At early laying period (POt. 201 week) (lie two

levels of restriction had significantly depressed (F-0,0.S) feed intake, w('iehii of' first ci'",

lien daY production (I ll)P), lien house ;1vcraLe (Ill IA) and siiiiHcnilly de ivcd ace ii

first egg fed hirdS reached OTiii of either than restricted oiies. I3irdS that were nuderrestriction tc iiig laid I ivici Iii

cs than the (1(1 I/h//u,,, led birds. I'hie restricted birds also had IOVCr III )P than their (1(1

lil'ifiiiii eotniterparls. leii (1 Li) percettt restricted birds transferred to (UI IiI'/um lcediiie.

had the best eeoilonlie indices. Birds had hiuhier feed nitake, poorer kg/ doicn ecg, higher

cost br dozen eggs (N) mid lower gloss Jualgin (N) during post-rcstnctioii t inic ( P

than when they were under restriction. On egg quality, birds had higher ( Li (f.O ) haiigh

unit and albumen height but lower yolk iJ1(lex during resitictioni Ii tine than during posi

restriction lime. There were no signi licant di iicrcnccs in all the other qual itv indices was conducted to investigate the effects of various levels oi

quaiitila(ivc Iced restriction and various lengths of tile restriction perio(I as vell aS total

restoration 10 (((1 Ii/)i/UI)! fCe(I ilig on the performance, laying characteristics and

econoiiiics of egg j)ro(ltictioii (it using 35 20-week old ()Ivnipia Irown

coiiiniei'cial put lets. 'the experiment which lasted f'roni 20111 week of age 7111 vcck o I'

ae was divided itito lilajor periods: Period I (20 \\'cekS of age to point of lay, P( )l ).

Pcriod II (POI. to 50' lien day production, I Il)P) and period I I (age at 50 Ill )P to

cud of cxperiiient). During period 1 (lie birds vet'c subjected to 3 treatments of a/

IiL'iu,n lcediig (i\l), I 0% restriction f'eeding (RI'1) and 20% restriction (ceding ( l F'). In

period I I , (lie A1 birds wcrc subdivided into 3 gmups one continued on a/ Iili,w,

R'ediiig (i\FAF), the second group VaS switched o\'ei' to I 0 icstiietioii lc'cdiii'

(i\ FRI ), and the third group was also switched over to 20% restriction fecdiig (Al"RF2 ).

Each of RF1and RF2birds were subdivided into 2 groups, with one continuing on its

olin,illa! feeding reg,iliic an(l designated RF1 R1 1and RF2 R l i'espectivehv. hiik' the

second groups were returned to wi /ilifll'ni feeding and designated RI' iF ;itid RI

respectively. Period I I I \VaS ('nithier divided into two, vu: icstrictioii period t fl"

week) and post restriction period (34111

-

37111 week). During the restriction period birds

coiilinuc(t in (lie same treat iiients as in period I I while under the post restriction period

a! I (lie groups were reverted, Oil ti'eatinent t)aSiS to wi li/'i!un, fediiig. I)uriiig the ciiti IC

period III one egg per replicate was collected three times j)CF week for egg quality

nid ices. During rearing (2O1 \vcek - point - of - lay (P01 ,) birds under 20% feed

restriction had the lowest (P<0.05) feed intake lìile birds under (UI li/iiium feeding had

(lie highest (P'0.05) Iced intake. Weight gain, teed conversion ratio (ICR), bod' veie,hit

were not significantly afiected (P>0.05). At early laying period (POt. 201 week) (lie two

levels of restriction had significantly depressed (F-0,0.S) feed intake, w('iehii of' first ci'",

lien daY production (I ll)P), lien house ;1vcraLe (Ill IA) and siiiiHcnilly de ivcd ace ii

first egg coiiiparcd ti 11ien (UI /IlflhlW1 CotiiiiCtFcirt. ii] Ii/iiiiii fed hirdS reached OTiii of

ki either than restricted oiies. I3irdS that were nuder restriction tc iiig laid I ivici Iii

cs than the (1(1 I/h//u,,, led birds. I'hie restricted birds also had IOVCr III )P than their (1(1

lil'ifiiiii eotniterparls. leii (1 Li) percettt restricted birds transferred to (UI IiI'/um lcediiie.

had the best eeoilonlie indices. Birds had hiuhier feed nitake, poorer kg/ doicn ecg, higher

cost br dozen eggs (N) mid lower gloss Jualgin (N) during post-rcstnctioii t inic ( P

than when they were under restriction. On egg quality, birds had higher ( Li (f.O ) haiigh

unit and albumen height but lower yolk iJ1(lex during resitictioni Ii tine than during posi

restriction lime. There were no signi licant di iicrcnccs in all the other qual itv indices