This site uses cookies for learning about our traffic, we store no personal details. ACCEPT COOKIES DECLINE COOKIES What are cookies?
univerge site banner
Original Article | Open Access | Int. J. Agric. Vet. Sci., 2024; 6(2), 27-34 | doi: 10.34104/ijavs.024.027034

Productive Performance of Layer Chickens Fed Diets Containing Enzyme Fortified Feather Meal

Ekenyem Benjamin U. Mail Img ,
Okafor Ogechukwu L.* Mail Img ,
Lumanze Ngozi. B. Mail Img ,
Madubuike Festus. N. Mail Img

Abstract

The research was conducted to investigate the replacement value of enzyme-fortified feather meal (EFFM) for fish meal in the layer chicken diets. A total of one hundred and fifty (150) ISA Brown birds of thirty-five (35) weeks old were used for this study. The birds were randomly assigned to five treatment groups in a completely randomized design. Each treatment was replicated three times. In each experiment, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 layer diets were formulated such that diet one (1) contained 0% of enzyme-fortified feather meal, while diets 2, 3, 4, and 5 contained 1, 2, 3 and 4% levels of EFFM respectively. Each level of EFFM was used to partially replace fish meals in the experimental diet, while treatment effects were assessed over the experimental period. Results obtained showed that the initial weights were similar (P>0.05) between the treatment groups. However, final weight, weight gain, and average daily feed intake differed significantly (P<0.05) between treatment groups. Birds on diet T5 had significantly lower egg numbers than the control while maintaining similar egg length and shell weight with the control. The egg internal quality characteristics showed that the treatment effects for the yolk height and albumen weight were significantly (P<0.05) reduced in T5 and T4 birds compared to the other groups, while the rest were similar (P>0.05) with each other. Feeding of EFFM forced down (P<0.05) the cost of producing the layer diet per kg of feed with the lowest cost being recorded for T5 (4.00% EFFM). A similar trend was also observed for feed cost/kg of egg produced which was also reduced with increasing inclusion of EFFM in the diets. Thus, the returns from sales were increased as EFFM increased in the poultry diet.

INTRODUCTION

Poultry meat offer considerable potential in bridging the gap between supply and demand for animal protein especially in developing countries like Nigeria (Jiya et al., 2013). Poultry products such as eggs and meat are considered to be excellent sources of protein necessary to meet the protein requirements of man, but ever-increasing population has placed a great demand on agriculture to provide adequate food for man and live-stock (Olawumi et al., 2012). However, the industry is faced with a lot of challenges which include inade-quate nutrition, high cost of feed, poor quality feed etc (Jiya et al., 2013). This is as a result of stiff com-pletion for little available conventional feed stuff, occasioned by low crop and crisis among other factors (Tuleun et al., 2010). Recently, the focus of research on monogastric nutrition has been on the use of the alternative feed stuff which can either substitute directly or can be included at a certain level without being deleterious to animals wellbeing. Hence the use of less known non-conventional feed stuff that are not edible or in direct competition with man for food have been advocated for. Some of those ingredients, which feather meal is one of them has been found to be fit for animal consumption and not competed for by humans (Haryianto et al., 2017; Clapano et al., 2022).

Feathers are rich in hydrophobic amino acids and important amino acids like cystine, arginine and threo-nine which are important in poultry production (Chen et al., 2015b; Stiborova et al., 2016). Increased production of poultry appears to lie in the ability of farmers to replace the feed ingredients that are expen-sive and highly competed for with the cheaper but nutritionally sounding unconventional feed resources which can yield similar results and at the same time be cost effective and without deleterious effects on the animals (Wagh et al., 2021). By-products from the livestock industry, such as feathers, meat offal, blood, and so on have potentials and many have been used with varying degrees of success as replacement for fish meal in livestock industry (Alao et al., 2017).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

The study was conducted at the Poultry unit of Teach-ing and Research Farms, Imo State University Owerri, Nigeria, where the birds were raised for the purpose of this study. The research proposal was approved by the University Ethics Committee. The study area is loca-ted within the tropical rain forest zone of Nigeria, with the coordinates of longitude 7003E, latitude 5048N and elevation of 73 meters above sea level. The annual evapo-transpiration is 1450mm, with a mean annual rainfall of 1750mm.

Sources and Processing of Experimental Materials

The poultry feathers were sourced from commercial slaughter houses in Owerri, Imo State. The feathers were washed and boiled under high pressure until the resulting process of hydrolysis coverts the feathers into a more soluble form. After boiling, the feathers were washed, sundried and milled to produce feather meal. The fish meal (FM) and other feed ingredients used for this study were procured from a reputable farm feed mill in Owerri. Proximate analysis of the feather meal (EFFM) and fishmeal (FM) were con-ducted at Precision Analytical and Research Labo-ratory Ibadan, Nigeria. The mineral analysis was carried out by the method described by Grueling, (2000) while the gross energy was determined with Gallencamp Oxygen Adiabatic Bomb Calorimeter (AOAC, 1995).

Experimental Diets

Five experimental layer diets were formulated, such that T1 which served as the control contains 0.0% enzyme fortified feather meal, while diets, T2, T3, T4 and T5 contained 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.0%, and 4% enzyme fortified feather meal (EFFM) with 100g of bioz-yme® per 100kg weight of feed respectively repla-cing fishmeal. The ingredient composition of the experimental diet is shown in Table 1.

Experimental Birds and Design

One hundred and fifty (150) 35-weeks old ISA Brown hens were used for this purpose. They were divided into five treatment groups of thirty (30) birds each and each group was randomly assigned to one of the experimental diets in a completely randomized design (CRD). Each treatment group was further sub-divided into three replicates of ten (10) birds.

Management Operations

The birds were housed on a deep litter pen. Feed and water were provided adlibitum, vaccination and medi-cation schedule were strictly adhered to. Biosafety was also ensured. Daily routine management of wash-ing of the feeder and drinker were done. Litters were changed as at when due. Prior to the commencement of the experiment, birds were weighed to obtain initial weight. The feeding trial lasted for ninety (90) days.

Data Collection

Data were collected on the following performance characteristic parameters.

Feed intake 

Feed intake was determined as the difference between the quantity of feed supplied and the leftover.

Weight gain

The birds were weighed on weekly basis. Total body weight gain was calculated by subtracting the initial body weight from the final body weight while daily body weight was determined by dividing the total body weight by the number of days the experiment lasted.       

Feed conversion ratio 

The feed conversion ratio was computed by dividing the average daily feed intake by the number of eggs produced.

FCR: Average daily feed intake  

          Average daily body weight

Percentage hen day egg production (%)

Total No of eggs laid/day   x 100

No of birds alive


External egg quality measurements

Egg weight (g)

Eggs collected from each replicate were weighed with electronic digital scale

Egg length (cm) 

Egg length was measured as the distance between the broad and narrow ends of the eggs using Vernier caliper

Egg width (cm) 

The egg width was measured at the broad cross-sectional region of the egg

Average egg weight

Total weight of eggs 

No of eggs

Internal egg quality measurements 

Albumen and yolk heights

Albumen and yolk heights were measured at the widest expanse and midway between the yolk edge and the external edge of the thick albumen using a micrometer screw gauge and Vernier calipers respect-tively. 

Shell weight (g)

The weights of the cleaned and dried shell (without membrane) were taken using electronic digital scale.

Percentage shell (%): This was calculated by divi-ding shell weight by egg weight and multiple by 100

Albumen index: Albumen height

  Albumen width 

Yolk index: Yolk height

Yolk width 

Shell thickness (mm): dry egg shells were measured at three different points (narrow, middle and broad portions) with micrometer screw gauge.   

Yolk weight: an egg separator was used to separate the yolk from the albumen and weighed with a sensitive weighing balance.

Albumen weight: albumen weight was calculated by subtracting yolk and dry shell weights from the whole egg weight. Albumen weight relative to the individual egg weight calculated.  

Haugh unit (Hu): 100 log 10(H – 1.7w0.35 + 7.6)

Where,

Hu = Haugh unit (%)

H = Observed albumen height (mm)

W = Egg weight (g)

Data Analysis

All data collected were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the differences between means separated by the Duncans Multiple Range Test as outlined by SPSS Analytical package (SPSS, 2012).

RESULTS

Nutrient Retention

Results on the nutrient retention of layer chicken fed enzyme fortified feather meal (EFFM) for fish meal replacement is presented on Table 6. Results obtained showed that the birds in T3 (2.00%) recorded highest value of dry matter (82.50%) which differed signifi-cantly (P<0.05) from other treatment groups. This is followed by birds in T2 (1.00%) (80.10%), T1 (0.00%) (79.40%) and T4 (3.00%) (78.69%) in that order, though non-significant difference (P>0.05) was obser-ved amongst them. Birds in T5 (4.00%) had the least mean value of dry matter (76.55%) which differed 

significantly with other treatment groups. 

Birds in control diet (0.00%) had the highest value of crude protein (63.40%), trailed behind by birds in T4 (62.98%), T5 (62.94%), T3 (62.86%), while birds in T2 recorded the least value of crude protein (61.89%). Ether extract and crude fibre were observed most in birds fed control diets (T1) (81.04%) (59.89) respect-tively, and the values reduced with increasing level of EFFM diets across the treatment groups respectively. Ash was highest with birds in T4 groups (59.28%), with birds in T3 (57.25%), T2 (56.75%), T1 (54.80%) and T5 (54.19%) followed behind each other. 

Cost effectiveness

Profitability of enzyme fortified feather meal (EFFM) for fish meal (FM) replacement is shown in below Table 7. Both the feed cost/kg and the feed cost/kg of egg produced were significantly different (P<0.05) and significantly reduced with increasing inclusion of EFFM in the diets. The control diet had the highest feed cost per kg and feed cost per kg of egg produced. 

However, the T2 diet had similar (P>0.05) feed cost per kg of egg produced with the control and both were significantly higher than the other groups, while diet T5 (4.00% EFFM inclusion) had the least feed cost per kg of egg produced.

DISCUSSION

Replacing fish meal with EFFM at various inclusion levels in the layer diets was not deleterious to the experimental laying hens. All the treated diets returned similar performance responses as the control except for final weight which was significantly reduced in birds fed T2 (1.00%) and T4 (3.00%) EFFM in their diets. The change in weights of birds during egg laying was significantly reduced in birds fed higher levels of EFFM (i.e. T4 and T5) in their diets. The replacement of fish meal with enzyme fortified feather meal in T5 significantly decreased feed intake while maintaining similar or no significant improvements in performance relative to the control birds. Similar observations have been reported Senkoylu et al. (2005), who observed no deleterious effect on hen-day production percentage, feed intake and egg mass with feather meal inclusion in layer diets but rather improved FCR and egg weight. Significant improvement in egg production, egg mass and feed conversion ratio have been reported for quail birds fed feather meal compared with the control (Al-Hummond and Mohsen, 2019). Earlier studies reported poor laying performance with the replacement of fishmeal with feather meal (El-Boushy et al., 1990). However, the similarity in the FCR values of the hens placed on the experimental diets and those on control is suggestive that the complete replacement of fish meal using feather meal at high inclusion levels (4%) had no deleterious effect and could sufficiently supply the required nutrients for optimal laying performance. The varying levels of dietary replacement of fish meal with feather meal (EFFM) had no treatment effects on the external egg quality characteristics and were similar with the control values.  However, the egg internal quality characteristics differed among the treatment groups, although with no clear trend as to determine if the differences were as a result of EFFM diets. However, the yolk height and albumen weight of birds in T4 and T5 diets were significantly (P<0.05) reduced below the control values. This implies that the inclusion of EFFM beyond 2.00% (T3) in replacement for fish meal caused the laying of less densed eggs compare to the control and could impact on the Haugh unit, which is a quality parameter for determining egg internal quality (Kul and Seker, 2004). However, the replacement of fishmeal with feather meal significantly reduced the cost of feed and feed cost per kg of egg produced. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, fish meal which is a major ingredient in poultry feed formulation is quite expensive. In this study, replacing fish meal with EFFM at various inclusion levels in the layer diets was not deleterious to the experimental hens, it also forced down the cost of producing the layer diets. Feather is cheap and abundantly available. It is not competed for by humans and does not contain any anti-nutritional factors. Its protein can be made available through good proces-sing method, including fortification with enzymes. Therefore, the use of this agricultural by-product in formulation of poultry diets will reduce the cost of poultry feed which invariably will reduce the price of table eggs and meat making them available and afford-able even to average consumers thereby bridging the gap between supply and demand for animal protein especially in developing countries like Nigeria. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank the farm hands in the poul-try unit of Teaching and Research farms, Imo state University Owerri, for their assistance in management of the birds.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest. 

Article References:

  1. Alao, B. O., Falowo, A. B., and Muchenje, V. (2017). The potential of animal by products in food systems: production, prospects and challen-ges. Sustainability, 9(7), 1089. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071089  
  2. Al-Hummond, K. M. and Mohsen, S. B. (2019). Comparison of different types of protein concen-trates in female Japanese quail diets and study their effect on production and sensory and chara-cteristics. Basrah J. of Veterinary Research, 18, 56-66. 
  3. AOAC, (1995). Official methods of analysis. 16th edition, Association of official analytical che-mists, Washington DC, USA.
  4. Clapano MB, Fuentes AE, and Desucatan MA. (2022). Phenotypic characterization of mottled native chicken in Davao region, Philippines. Am. J. Pure Appl. Sci., 4(4), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.34104/ajpab.022.055064 
  5. Chen, J., Ding, S., and Li, Z. (2015b). Micro-wave-enhanced hydrolysis of poultry feathers to produce amino acid. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 87, 104-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2014.11.017  
  6. El Boushy, A. R., Van der Poel, A. F. B. and Walraven, O. E. D. (1990). Feather meal - A bio-logical waste: Its processing and utilization as a feedstuff for poultry. Biol. Wastes, 32(1), 39-74. 
  7. Grueling, H. T. (2000). The chemical analysis of tissues. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA
  8. Haryianto, A., Purwaningrum, M., and Wija-yanti, N. (2017). Effect of chicken feather meal on feed conversion ratio and blood lipid profile of broiler chicken. Asian J. of Poultry Science, 11, 64-69. 
  9. Jiya, E. Z., Ayanwale, B. A., and Tsado, D. (2013). Effect of activated coconut shell charcoal meal on growth performance and nutrient digestibility of broiler chickens. British Journal of Applied Science, 3(2), 268-276. 
  10. Kul, S. and Seker, I. (2004). Phenotypic correla-tions between some external and internal egg quality traits in the Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica L.). Inter J. of Poultry Science, 3(6), 400-405. 
  11. Olawumi, S. O., Fajemilehin, S. O. and Fagbu-aro, S. S. (2012). Genotype and sex interaction effects on carcass traits of three commercial broiler chickens. J. of World Poultry Research, 2(1), 21-24. http://jwpr.science-line.com/   
  12. Senkoylu, N., Samli, H. E., and Yasar, S. (2005). Performance and characteristics of laying hens fed diets incorporated with poultry by-product and feather meals. J. of Applied Poultry Rese-arch, 14(3), 542- 547. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/14.3.542   
  13. SPSS, (2012). Statistical packages for social sciences, Version 20.0, SPSS Inc. Illinois USA.
  14. Stiborova, H., Branska, B., and Demnerova, K. (2016). Transformation of raw feather waste into digestible peptides and amino acids. J. of Chemi-cal Technology and Biotechnology, 91(6), 1629- 1637. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.4912  
  15. Tuleun, C. D., Offia, B. and Yaakugh, I. D. I. (2010). Comparative performance of broiler fed diets containing raw and processed mucuna seed meal. Inter J. of Poultry Science, 9(11), 1056-1062. https://doi.org/10.3923/IJPS.2010.1056.1062  
  16. Wagh, H. A., Shinde, R. M., and Patange, V. V. (2021). “Low-cost feed formulation for eco-nomical rearing of rural poultry. Inter J. of Chemical Studies, 260-263. 

Article Info:

Academic Editor 

Dr. Phelipe Magalhães Duarte, Professor, Department of Veterinary, Faculty of Biological and Health Sciences, University of Cuiabá, Mato Grosso, Brazil.

Received

February 2, 2024

Accepted

March 3, 2024

Published

March 11, 2024

Article DOI: 10.34104/ijavs.024.027034

Corresponding author

Okafor Ogechukwu L.*

Department of Animal Science, University of Agri-culture and Environmental Sciences Umuagwo, Imo-state, Nigeria.

Cite this article

Benjamin UE, Ogechukwu LO, Ngozi BL, and Festus NM. (2024). Productive performance of layer chickens fed diets containing enzyme fortified feather meal. Int. J. Agric. Vet. Sci., 6(2), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.34104/ijavs.024.027034

Views
157
Download
114
Citations
Badge Img
Share