Keywords
proximate quality
livestock wastes
How to Cite
Abstract
Maggot, housefly larva was grown on four substrates namely: poultry (layer) droppings, cattle dung, pig dung, and whole cattle blood. Poultry droppings produced maggots with the highest wet and dry weight, while the lowest weights were recorded for pig dung. The values ranged between 58.73g and 8.18g for wet weight and 12.79g and 2.97g for dry weight respectively. Proximate compositions of the maggots were determined using standard methods. Results indicate that the crude protein content of the maggots ranged from 55.4% in maggots grown on pig dung to 57.42% in maggots grown on cattle blood. The crude fibre contents ranged between 0.32% and 0.21%. Maggots produced from pig dung and cattle blood recorded the highest ash content and the values were 11.09% and 11.20% respectively. Moisture content was highest (10.14%) for maggots produced from cattle dung. Fat content of the maggots produced from the different livestock wastes ranged between 21.06% and 22.66%. Significant differences (p<0.05) in the proximate composition of the maggots were only observed in the crude fiber, ash and moisture contents. The results from this study showed that the substrates used can produce substantial quantities of maggots with varying degrees of success.
References
Akpodiete OJ, Ologhobo AD and Oluyemi JO. 1993. The production and nutritive value of maggot meal from larvae and pupal in three substrates of poultry droppings. Report to the Dept of Animal Science, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Aniebo AO, Erondu ES and Owen OJ. 2008. Proximate composition of housefly larva (Musca domestica) meal generated from mixture of cattle blood and wheat bran. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 20 (12):1-5.
Aniebo AO and Owen OJ. 2010. Effects of Age and Method of Drying on the Proximate Composition of Housefly Larvae (Musca domestica Linnaeus) Meal (HFLM). Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 9 (5): 485-487, 2010.
AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of analysis AOAC, International, P. Cunniff Sixteenth edition, Vol. II Chapter 49, 1-49. Arlington, Virginia, United States.
Awoniyi TAM and Aletor VA. 2002. Proc. 29th Ann. Cont. Nig. Soc. of Anim. Prod. NSAP. March 17-21 2002. Fed- University of Tech. Akure, Nigeria. 170-173.
Calvert CC, Martins RD and Eby HJ. 1971. Housefly pupae as food for poultry. Journal of Economic Entomology. 62(1): 939.
Cao JunMing, Yan Jing, Huang YanHua, Wang GuoXia, Zhang RongBin, Chen XiaoYing, Wen YuanHong, Zhou TingTing. 2012. Effects of replacement of fish meal with housefly maggot meal on growth performance, antioxidant and non-specific immune indexes of juvenile Litopenaeus vannamei. J. Fish. China, 36 (4): 529-537.
Duncan DB. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.
Ekoue SE and Hadzi YA. 2000. Maggots production as proteins source for young poultry in Togo - Preliminary observations. Tropicultura, 18 (4): 212–214.
Fasakin EA, Balogun AM and Ajayi OO. 2003. Evaluation of full-fat and defatted maggot meals in the feeding of clariid catfish Clarias gariepinus fingerlings. Aquaculture Research. 34(9): 733-738.
Heuzé V and Tran G. 2013. Housefly maggot meal. Feedipedia.org. A programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/671.
Hwangbo J, Hong EC, Jang A, Kang HK, Oh JS, Kim BW and Park BS. 2009. Utilization of house fly–maggots a feed supplement in the production of broiler chickens. Journal of Environmental Biology. 30(4): 609 -614.
Inaoka T, Okubo G, Yokota M, Takemasa M. 1999. Nutritive Value of House Fly Larvae and Pupae Fed on Chicken Feces as Food Source for Poultry. J. Poult. Sci., 36 (3): 174-180.
Oresegun A and Alegbeleye WO. 2002. Serum and Tissue Thiocyanate concentration in Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Fed Cassava Peel Based Diets supplemented with DL – Methionine. Journal of Aquaculture in the Tropics.17(2): 93-100.
Ossey YB, Koumi AR, Koffi KM, Atse BC, Kouame LP. 2012. Use of soybean, bovine brain and maggot as sources of dietary protein in larval Heterobranchus longifilis (Valenciennes, 1840). J. Anim. Plant Sci., 15 (1): 2099-2108.
Paiko YB, Dauda BEN, Salau RB and Jacob JO. 2012. Preliminary Data On The Nutritional Potentials of The Larvae Of Edible Dung Beetle Consumed In Paikoro Local Government Area Of Niger State, Nigeria. Continental J. Food Science and Technology 6(2):38- 42.
Pastor B, Čičková H, Kozánek M, Martínez-Sánchez A, Takáč P and Rojo S. 2011. Effect of the size of the pupae, adult diet, oviposition substrate and adult population density on egg production in Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Eur. J. Entomol., 108 (4): 587–596.
Sogbesan OA. 2006. Effects of different organic substrates on growth and survival of long winged termite (Macrotermes subhyabrius) under laboratory conditions. Afr. J. Gen. Agric., 2(2): 37-44.
Sogbesan AO, Ajuonu N, Musa BO, Adewole AM. 2006. Harvesting techniques and evaluation of maggot meal as animal dietary protein source for ‘Heteoclarias’ in outdoor concrete tanks. World J. Agric. Sci., 2 (4): 394-402.
Teguia A and Beynen AC. 2005. Alternative feedstuffs for broilers in Cameroon. Livestock Research for Rural Development 17 (3). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/3/tegu17034.htm.
Viroje W and Malin S. 1989. Effects of fly larval meal grown on pig manure as a source of protein in early weaned pig diets. Thurakit Ahan Sat, 6 (21): 25-31.
Zhu FX, Wang WP, Hong CL, Feng MG, Xue ZY, Chen XY, Yao YL, Yu M. 2012. Rapid production of maggots as feed supplement and organic fertilizer by the two-stage composting of pig manure. Biores. Technol., 116: 485–491.
Zvereva EL and Zhemchuzhina AA. 1988. On some factors influencing the Musca domestica L. fecundity. MedskayaParazitol. 58: 27–30 [in Russian].
Copyright license for the research articles published in Journal of Research in Biology are as per the license given below
Creative Commons License
Journal of Research in Ecology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). (www.creativecommons.org)
Based on a work at www.jresearchbiology.com
What this License explains us?
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
[As given in the www.creativecommons.org website]
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.