Keywords
nutritive value
Energy sources
Hematological parameters
How to Cite
Abstract
A study was carried out to evaluate the nutritive value and enzyme supplementation of different sources of energy in broiler diets on the growth performance and heamatological parameters of broiler chickens supplemented with Mazigrain® enzyme within the treated groups. Five isonitrogenous and isocaloric diets (23.17 % CP; 2831 Kcal/ME and 21.73 % CP; 2929 Kcal/ME) for the broiler starter (0 - a month) and finisher phases (5–8 months) respectively were formulated. Diet 1(maize based diet) served in as the control while diets 2, 3, 4 and 5 were supplemented with sorghum, pearl millet, cassava and sweet potatoes based diets separately. A sum of 225 day-old NAPRI X broiler chicks were haphazardly distributed to the five treatments. Every treatment comprised of 45 broilers with three repeats of fifteen birds each in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). The general linear model protocol of S.A.S. 9.0. was used to analyze the collected data. Among the dietary groups significant changes (P<0.05) was found utilizing a Tukey test. Enzyme along with various energy sources have noteworthy (P<0.05) changes on every one of the parameters (final weight, daily weight gain, feed conversion ratio, water intake, water to feed ratio and feed cost per kilogram weight gain) except for death rate at the starter phase. Broilers that had sorghum based diet had the best performance at starter stage (final weight; 627 g, weight gain; 576.85 g, feed cost/kg gain; ^ 187.95 k). At the finisher stage, sorghum supplemented with enzyme had the best feed conversion ratio (1.96) and feed cost/kg gain; ^ 171.15 k. The optimal performance characteristics were recorded for sorghum based diets. Feed cost / kg gain was the cheapest on birds fed sorghum based diet with enzyme supplementation which was comparable with those fed the maize based diet. However, the use of enzyme enhanced the performance of birds at both the starter and finisher phases.
References
Apata DF and Babalola TO. (2012). The use of cassava, sweet potato and cocoyam, and their by-products by non-ruminants. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering, 2(4): 54-62.
Conolly A. (2012). Seminar presentation on pushing the boundaries – performance and profitability. Poultry In-ternational Magazine, Mark Clement (ed). www.WATTAgNet.com. 18 p.
David W. Finn and Charles W. Lamb Jr. (1991). An evaluation of the servqual scales in a retailing setting in NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 18, eds. Rebec-ca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 483-490 p.
Oladele SB and Ayo JO. (1999). Comparative studies on hematocrit, hemoglobin and total protein values of apparently healthy and clinically sick indigenous chick-ens in Zaria, Nigeria. Bulletin of Animal Health Produc-tion in African, 47(4): 163-167.
Pariza MW and Cook M. (2010). Determining the safety of enzymes used in animal feed. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 56(3): 332–342.
Medugu CI, Raji AO, Igwebuike JU and Barwa E. (2011). Alternative cereal grains and cereal by-products as sources of energy in poultry diets – a review. Research Opinions in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 1(8): 530-542.
Munir K and Maqsood S. (2013). A review on role of exogenous enzyme supplementation in poultry produc-tion. Emirate Journal of Food and Agriculture. 25(1): 66-80. doi: 10.9755/ejfa.v25i1.9138.
Schalm OW, Jain NC and Caroll EJ. (1975). Textbook of Veterinary Haematology, 2nd ed. Published by Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, 129 – 250 p.
Sekoni AA, Omage JJ. Bawa GS and Esuga PM. (2008). Evaluation of enzyme (Maxigrain®) treatment of graded levels of Palm Kernel Meal (PKM) on nutri-ent retention. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 7(4): 614-619: 1680-5194.
Sheppy C. (2003). The current feed enzyme market and likely trends. In: MR. Bedford and GG Partridge (eds.). enzymes in farm animal nutrition CABI Publishing Wallingford, Oxon, UK. 1-10 p.
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. (2002). Users guide statistics, Version 6th ed, SAS institute Inc. Cary. North Carolina, USA.
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.