Amole, Tunde A.

Ogunwole, O.

Oladimeji, S.

Tewe, O.

English

CGSpace

8th Asan-Nias Joint Annual Meeting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...  147  APPT 009  CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS AND ORGAN WEIGHTSOF BROILER CHICKENSFED VARYING INCLUSION LEVELS OF CASSAVA (MANIHOTESCULENTACRANTZ) PEEL BASED DIETS  Oladimeji S. O., Ogunwole O. A., Amole T. A. and Tewe O. O. 1Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition Unit, Department of Animal Science, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Idi-Ose, Ibadan, Nigeria. Animal Nutrition Department, Amo Byng Nigeria Limited, Awe, Oyo State.  ABSTRACT The effect of four cassava peel products on carcass characteristics of broiler chickens were investigated with 10-day old Ross 308 broiler chickens(n=455) randomly divided into thirteen treatments of 35 birds each. Each treatment was in five replicate of 7 birds per replicate in a completely randomised design. The experimental diet had sundried cassava peel meal (SCPM), coarse cassava peel mash (CCPM), whole cassava peel mash (WCPM) and fine cassava peel mash (FCPM) each at three (20,40 and 60%)levels of  replacement of maize and thelast diet was a maize-based control diet.Resultsshowed that there was no significant effect of replacement of maize with all test samples on the offal yield except for eviscerated weight, breast meat, wings and heart. Broiler chickens on control had the highest eviscerated yield of 80.86% and breast meat yield of24.90%, while those on 20% SCPM (73.33%) and 20% FCPM (21.27%) had lower eviscerated and breast yields, respectively. The highest wing yield was obtained from chickens on 60% SCPM (8.89%) andleast in those on 60%FCPM (7.55%). Broiler on 60% CCPM had the higher heart yield (0.61%) than those on 20% WCPM (0.36%). In conclusion,replacement of up to 60% of maize with cassava peel products did not have adverse effect onthe broiler meat yield and organ weights except for breast, wings, eviscerated weight and heart. Keywords: Cassava peel, Internal offal, External offal, Primal cuts, High-Quality Cassava Peel Mash *Corresponding author: Oladimeji S. O. Email: oladimejioo@gmail.com/+2348062411299  INTRODUCTION The demand for livestock products is increasing due to growing human population (1). Poultry product particularly broiler meat has a great potential to meet this demand due to the relatively lower  feed conversion ratio (FCR) and short rearing period of  broiler chickens. Maize remains an integral part of broiler chickens’ feed and its inclusion in diet could be as high as 60% (5). The availability of maize all year round for poultry feed has reduced and this could be attributed to competition for maize by humans and animals, irregular rainfall pattern and high cost of maize (5,8).These have resulted tosearch for alternatives especially when maize is scarce. An alternative feed resource that could be used in place of dietary maize is cassava (ManihotesculentaCrantz) peels since it is less competed for by humans. Cassava peel is obtained from generous peeling of cassava tuber account for 10-13 percent of the tuber weight and when dried, couldbe used to replace maize in broiler diets (6). 8th Asan-Nias Joint Annual Meeting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...  148  Cassava peel could not be used wet and needed to be processed into dried form. Researchers has adopted different method of processing of cassava peel formonogastric diet with success(1,2,6,7) with sun-drying commonly adopted. Findings of (8) also noted that it is practically impossible to sun-dry fresh cassava peel during the wet season as it requires 2-3 days to reduce the moisture content of cassava peel to 20% or less for marketing.It was thereforesuggested that a new processing method similar to garri but without fermentation would be required which would facilitate sundryingin less than 6 hours. These methods involve combination of different physical methods such as grating, dewatering, pulverizing and sun-drying. There is therefore the need to documentinformation on the effect of these different cassava peel products on carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying dietary level of cassava peel products which wereinvestigated in this study.  MATERIALS AND METHODS TEST MATERIAL Fresh cassava peel from white varieties of cassava was obtained from cassava processing plant in Ajegunle, Oyo, Oyo State. The cassava peel was then transported to International Livestock Research Institute for processing into products.  One part was sorted for stump or foreign materials, sundriedfor 2-3 hours andmilled to becomeSundried Cassava Peel Meal (SCPM). Other products: Whole Cassava Peel Mash (WCPM), Fine Cassava Peel Mash (FCPM) and Coarse Cassava Peel Mash (CCPM) were obtained using the processing method of (8).  EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL  A total 10-day old Ross 308 broiler chickens (n=455) were randomly distributed into 13treatment groups of 35 birds. Each group was in five replicates of 7 birds per replicate.   Table 2: Gross composition (g/100g DM) of the experimental control grower and finisher diet EXPERIMENTAL DIETARY LAYOUT The experiment was a(4x3)+1 augmentedfactorial  arrangement in a complete randomized design. There were four cassava peel products sundried cassava peel meal (SCPM), coarse cassava peel mash (CCPM), whole cassava peel mash (WCPM) and fine cassava peel mash (FCPM) and three levels (%)of  replacement of maize 20,40 and 60% and augmented with a maize-based diet (control). The experimental diet was formulated for growing (days 10- 24) and finishing (days 24-46) phases. CARCASS ANALYSIS At day 46 of the experiment, two birds   Ingredients Grower Finisher Soya oil 2.70 1.50 Maize 50.00 52.00 Wheat bran 7.68 8.91 Soycake (45%) 30.30 13.80 Full fat soya 5.00 20.00 CaCO3 (35%) 1.00 0.80 Di-Calcium Phosphate 2.00 1.90 Salt 0.35 0.37 8th Asan-Nias Joint Annual Meeting ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...  149  with body weight closest to the group average weight were selected per replicate and were properly tagged. All the selected birds were starved of feed over-night. The birds were sacrificed, to bleed, defeathered and properly dissected into various parts and weights recorded. The different parts were calculated and reported in relative percentage of the live weight of birds Lysine 0.42 0.19 DL-methionine 0.20 0.18 *Premix 0.25 0.25 Toxin binder 0.10 0.10 Total 100.00 100.00 Calculated Nutrients   Crude Protein (%) 20.90 19.51 Metabolizable energy (Kcal/Kg) 3050.50 3103.90 Crude Fibre 3.20 3.40 Methionine (%) 0.51 0.48 Calcium (%) 0.99 0.85 AvailablePhosphorus (%) 0.51 0.49 Lysine (%) 1.40 1.16    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The effect of graded dietary levels of cassava peel products based diet on carcass characteristics and organ weights are shown in Tables 2 and Table 3. Results showed no significant effectof replacement of maize with all test cassava peel products on the offal yield except for eviscerated weight, breast meat,wings and heart. Birds on control diet had the highest eviscerated yield (80.86%) while the least yield was recorded by chickens on 20% SCPM (73.33%).   150  Table 2: The effect of graded level of cassava peel based diets on carcass primal cuts of broiler chickens % Cassava Peel  Product Inclusion level Eviscerated  Carcass Shank Head Neck Thigh Drum Stick Breast Back Wings Control 0 80.86a 74.02 4.02 2.71 4.49 10.98 10.76 24.90a 14.06 8.14abc  Sundried 20 73.33b 70.63 4.31 2.96 4.57 11.85 10.95 23.05ab 12.15 8.18abc 40 80.22a 72.39 3.65 3.28 4.73 12.85 10.64 22.77ab 12.09 8.36abc 60 80.22a 72.26 4.68 3.25 4.17 10.91 10.81 22.83ab 14.00 8.89a  Coarse 20 79.67a 72.39 4.30 2.85 3.96 11.26 10.81 23.53ab 14.14 8.14abc 40 80.23a 72.76 4.50 2.99 4.60 11.52 10.69 22.48ab 14.51 8.33abc 60 76.62ab 69.48 4.34 2.80 4.25 11.28 10.68 22.90ab 11.71 8.24abc  Whole 20 79.03ab 72.06 3.90 3.14 4.47 11.63 10.16 24.02ab 12.27 8.27abc 40 78.85ab 71.68 4.51 2.79 4.25 11.18 9.45 23.01ab 13.97 8.18abc 60 79.68a 71.81 4.87 2.92 4.36 11.78 1051 22.15ab 12.35 8.01bc  Fine 20 77.57ab 69.63 4.64 3.32 4.34 11.37 10.43 21.77b 13.06 8.36abc 40 78.75ab 71.68 4.23 2.86 4.37 11.55 10.80 23.21ab 13.70 8.40ab 60 79.30ab 72.27 4.12 2.93 4.40 11.06 10.67 23.39ab 14.20 7.55c  SEM 0.51 0.44 0.097 0.07 0.10 0.17 0.14 0.23 0.25 0.07    151  abcMeans with the same superscripts in the same column are not significantly different (P>0.05) SEM= Standard error of mean; All values are in % of live weight.  Table 3: The effect of graded level of cassava peel based diets on relative organ of broiler chickens (%). Cassava Product Inclusion level FG EG Liver Heart Kidney Spleen IL (cm)  IntWt AFAT Control 0 2.88 1.88 2.16 0.50abc 0.00 0.11 236.67 4.95 0.25  Sundried 20 3.41 2.35 1.85 0.52abc 0.01 0.08 216 5.77 0.00 40 3.05 2.03 2.02 0.56ab 0.02 0.11 224.00 5.68 0.84 60 3.25 2.26 1.96 0.49abc 0.01 0.10 217.67 6.66 0.17  Coarse 20 3.13 2.29 1.82 0.61a 0.01 0.09 209.67 5.23 0.00 40 3.44 2.05 1.62 0.40bc 0.01 0.09 213.67 5.42 0.31 60 3.06 2.00 1.80 0.48abc 0.01 0.10 240.67 5.65 0.20  Whole 20 2.71 1.94 2.24 0.36c 0.01 0.07 22.67 5.74 0.72 40 3.12 2.06 2.02 0.44abc 0.02 0.09 214.00 5.37 0.00 60 2.72 1.95 2.05 0.46abc 0.01 0.07 138.33 6.04 0.28  Fine 20 3.35 2.22 1.97 0.46abc 0.01 0.11 202.67 5.73 0.45 40 2.97 1.96 1.61 0.51abc 0.02 0.12 221.00 6.19 0.00 60 2.72 1.85 1.61 0.51abc 0.00 0.1 218.33 5.89 0.15  SEM 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.004 6.13 0.16 0.07    152  abcMeans with the same superscripts in the same column are not significantly different (P>0.05). All values were calculated from percentage of live weight. SEM= Standard error of mean; FG=Full gizzard, EG=Empty gizzard, IL= Intestinal length, AFAT= Abdominal fat, Intwt= %Intestinal weight in live weight.    153  Breast yield was highest with chickens on Control (24.90%) while the least yield was reported on chickens of 20% FCPM (21.77). Wing yield was highest in chickens on 60% SCPM (8.89%) while the lowest was recorded with chickens on 60% FCPM (7.55%). The highest heart yield was recorded withchickens of 20% CCPM (0.61%) and the least was recorded with WCPM (0.36%). The significant difference observed for both wings and heart yield negate the findings of (3) who observe no significant difference when chickens were fed lower inclusion of cassava peel based diets; the difference could be due to lower inclusion employed. The breast yield was similar to those reported by (5) which ranged from 23.04-24.73% for broiler chickens fed beta carotene bio-fortified cassava grit based diets. The variations observed were not consistent with the cassava peel products or inclusion level used; this could be adduced tothe iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous diets used in this study. CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION Replacement of up to 60% maize in broiler dietswith cassava peel products did not have adverse effecton the broiler meat yield and organ weights except for breast, wings, eviscerated weight and heart.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors appreciate the entire staff and management of International Livestock Research Institute, Ibadan for assisting the research with the cassava peel products used.  REFERENCES 1. Abu, O. A., Olaleru, I. F., Oke, T. D., Adepegba,V. A. and Usman, B. (2015) Performance of broiler chicken fed diets containing cassava peel and leaf meals as replacements for maize and soya bean meal. International Journal of Science and Technology, 4 (4), 169-173. 2. Adeyemo, I. A. and Sani, A. 2013. Haematological parametres and serum biochemical indices ofbroiler chickens fed Aspergillus nigerhydrolyzed cassava peel meal based diet. IJRRAS 15 (3)June 2013 www.arpapress.com/Volumes/Vol 15Issue3/IJRRAS_15_3_24.pdf 3. Egbunike, G.N., E.A. Agiang, A.O. Owosibo and A.A. Fatufe (2009). Effect of protein on performance and haematology of broilers fed cassava peel-based diets. Archivos de zootecnia.  Vol. 58 (224), 655-662. 4. Nworgu FC, Egbunike GN, Ogundola FI. (2000). Performance and nitrogen utilization of broilers fed full fat extruded soybean meal and full fat soybean. Tropical Animal Production Investigation. 3:47–54. 5. Ogunwole, O. A., Lawal, H. O., Idowu, A. I., Oladimeji, S. O., Abayomi, F. D., and Tewe, O. O. (2016). Carcass Characteristics, Proximate Composition and Residual Retinol in Meat of Broiler Chickens Fed β-Carotene Cassava (ManihotEsculentaCrantz) Grits Based Diets. Journal of Animal Production Research; 28(2):102-117.ISSN 0189-0514. 6. Oyebimpe, K., A. O. Fanimo, O. O. Oduguwa and W. O. Biobaku (2006). Response Of Broiler Chickens To Cassava Peel and Maize Offal In Cashew nut Meal-Based Diets Archivos de Zootecnia. 55 (211): 301-304. 7. Tewe, O. (1983). Thyroid cassava toxicity in animals. Pages 114-118 in Cassava toxicity end thyroid: research andpublic health issues. Proceedings, International Workshop on    154  Cassava Toxicity, edited by F. Delange and R Ahluwalia, 31 May-2 June 1982, Ottawa, Canada. IDRC-207e: Ottawa. 8. Okike I., A. Samireddypalle, L.Kaptoge, C. Fauquet, J. Atehnkeng, R.Bandyopadhyay, P.Kulakow, A. Duncan,T. Alabi, and M. Blummel. (2015). Technical innovations for small-scaleproducers and households to processwet cassava peels into high qualityanimal feed ingredients andaflasafe™ substrate. Food chain 5(1-2):71-90.    

Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of Cassava (Manihotesculentacrantz) peel based diets

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/106926/1/Cassava%20peel%20based%20diets.pdf

Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of Cassava (Manihotesculentacrantz) peel based diets

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace