Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Broiler Chickens Fed Dietary Levels of Maize Milling Residue as Replacement for Millet Offal
The experiments was conducted to evaluate the performance of broiler finisher chickens fed different levels of maize milling residue (MMR) as replacement for millet offal (MO) at graded levels of 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%. Two hundred broiler chicks were randomly assigned to five dietary treatments in a completely randomized design with forty birds per treatment (i.e. ten per replicates). Feed and water were offered ad-libitum. The feeding trial lasted for four weeks. The results of daily feed intake (DFI) were similar across the dietary treatment. The DFI ranges from 148.51 and 155.35g in treatment 1(0% MMR) and 5 (100% MMR) respectively. No significant dietary effects were observed in terms of daily weight gain (DWG) across the treatment groups. Similarly no significant dietary effects were observed among the treatments in terms of feed conversion ratio (FCR). However, FCR was numerically better in diet 5 (100% MMR). The live weight (2877.50 to 3332.50g), bled weight (2730.00 to 3137.50g), plucked weight (25.90.00 to 3002.50g), dressed weight (1955.00 to 2337.50g) and dressing percentage (67.94 to 71.83%) were also not affected by the dietary levels of maize milling residue as replacement for millet offal. Prime cuts expressed as percentages of live weight which includes breast (19.03 to 22.10%), drum stick (9.35 to 10.31%), thighs (11.64 to 12.02), back (7.75 to 9.47%) thorax (4.70 to 5,32%), head (1.82 to 2.25%) and legs (3.31 to 4.24%) did not differ significantly (P> 0.05) across the dietary treatments. Similarly all organs measured were not influenced by the dietary levels of maize milling residue as replacement for millet offal. Based on the results obtained, MMR can completely (100%) replace millet offal (MO) as dietary fibre source for feeding broiler finishers with no negative effect on performance and carcass parameters.
Alaku, S. O. (1983) Body and carcass loses in goats during the advanced period of West African dryseason. World Review of Animal Production. 19: 49-54.
Duncan, D. B. (1955) Multiple Range Test and Multiple F Test. Biometrics 11, 1- 5,
Ezieshi, E.V. and Olomu, U. (2008) Biochemical Evaluation of millet offal as feeds for broiler chickens Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 7(3): 421-425
Ezieshi, E.V. and Olomu, J.M. (2011) Comparative performance of broiler chickens fed varying levels of palm kernel cake and maize offal. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 3(4): 254-257.
Gwayo G. J., Doma U. D., Abubakar M. and Bello K. M. (2017). Response of broiler chickens fed graded levels of goat rumen digester in replacement for wheat offal as dietary fibre source. Proceedings of the 6th ASAN-NIAS Joint Annual Meeting, Septenber 10-14, 2017, Abuja, pp 527-530.
Ogundipe, S.O. (2002) Ration formulation and least cost at the small ruminant training workshop held at NAPRJ ABU, Zaria, 13th-18th Jan 2002
Ojelade, A.Y.P., Lamid, A.W., Umaru, J.I. and Ogunmiluyi, O.A. (2015). Performance and organs weight of broiler chickens fed graded level of mixture of Ocinum gratissmum and Vemonia amygdalina leaf meal-based diet. Proc. 20th Ann. Conf. Animal Science Association of Nigeria, Ibadan: PP 611-614.
Okai DB, Abora PKB, Davis T and Martin A (2005). Nutrient composition, availability, current and potential uses of “dusa”: a cereal by-product obtainedfrom “koko” (porridge) production. J. Sci. Tech., 25(1): 33- 41.
Osuagwu, F. M. and George, O. S.(2020) Hematological and Serum Biochemical Parameters of Broiler finisher Chickens fed yam and Sweet Potato Peel Meals as Replacement for Maize,In: The Proceedings of the 45th Annual Conference of Nigerian Society for Animal Production (NSAP), March 15th -19th 2020, Bauchi, pp 1035-1040
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H, (1980). Principles and Procedures of statistics. A Biometrical approach, 2nd Edition,McGraw-Hill Book.