Theses / Dissertations >
College of Agric and Natural Resources >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Assessing the Growth Performance and Economics of Feeding a Maize Substitute (Maize Replacer) Using Non-Conventional Feedstuffs for Broiler Diets|
|Authors: ||Kantanka, Goodman Sarfo|
|Issue Date: ||16-Dec-2013|
|Abstract: ||Two feeding trials involving 360 Cobb broilers were conducted to evaluate a maize substitute (Maize Replacer) formulated and compounded using non-conventional feedstuffs in both Experiment One and Two. The Maize Replacer which contained maize bran, rice bran, palm kernel cake, cassava flour, tuna waste, maize and palm oil was formulated to have 17% crude protein and 11.2 MJ/kg of metabolisable energy. With the incorporation of the Maize Replacer as an ingredient, the experimental diets were formulated to be iso-nitrogenous and iso-caloric. The diets contained an average of 21% crude protein and 12.0 MJ/kg of metabolisable energy. A Completely Randomized Design was used and each diet was replicated three times. Each treatment group had 90 birds for both experiments. Parameters measured were feed intake, live weight, feed conversion efficiency, mortality, feed cost and carcass characteristics. T1 denotes the control diet, which contained 60.80% of maize, T2 had 40% of maize, T3, 35% and T4, 33%.
In Experiment One, birds fed the four diets (T1, T2, T3 and T4) were significantly different (P<0.05) from each other in mean feed intake and weight gain. With final body weight (FBW) and average daily gain (ADG), as the level of Maize Replacer increased, body weight and body weight gain decreased. In terms of FCE, birds on the control treatment were the most efficient in converting feed into muscle. Feed efficiency deteriorated with increasing levels of Maize Replacer. The treatments did not have any significant effect (P>0.05) on the carcass parameters measured, bled weight, empty gizzard, eviscerated weight, full gizzard, kidney weight , liver weight and de-feathered weight. Dietary treatments had no effect on mortality as post mortem results did not attribute the cause of the three deaths from T1, T2 and T3 to the feed. In Experiment Two, a similar trend was observed, with regard to final body weight (FBW) and average daily gain (ADG), the level of Maize Replacer increased, body weight and body weight gain decreased . However, T1 was not significantly different (P>0.05) from T2. T2 was significantly different (P<0.05) from T3 and T4. T3 and T4 were also not significantly different (P>0.05) from each other. In terms of FCE there was no significant difference (P>0.05) between T1 and all the other treatments. Total feed intake recorded in T1 was significantly different (P> 0.05) from T2, T3 and T4. T2 was also significantly different (P> 0.05) from T3 and T4. T3 also differed from (P<0.05) T4. Dietary treatments had no effect on mortality as post mortem results did not attribute the cause of the two deaths from T1 and T3 to the feed. Maize Replacer could replace maize in Experimental One and Two up to 40% without any effects on all the parameters measured. On benefit-cost ratio, it may be concluded that investment in broiler farming using Maize Replacer is financially viable on all treatments. Benefit-cost ratio (BCR), investment in broiler production for Treatment One was found to be most profitable, followed by Treatment Two and Treatment Four. This was due to the fact that the benefits per bird were highest for Treatment One, followed by Treatment Two and Treatment Four. In contrast, the benefits per bird were lowest for Treatment Three.|
|Description: ||A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of Master of Science degree in Animal Nutrition, August-2013|
|Appears in Collections:||College of Agric and Natural Resources|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.