Journal of Animal Sciences and Livestock Production Open Access

Keywords

Animal protein; Poultry; Broilers

Introduction

Nigerians are faced with a shortage of animal protein supply due to some problems like the current economic situation, lack of a modern system of production and the most importantly high cost of feed which account for about 70%-80% of the total cost of producing broilers and eggs type chickens [1,2]. The high cost of poultry feed results in a general increase in the cost of production and hence affects the profitability of the poultry industry.

Adegbola reported that Nigerian consumed less than onequarter of the protein required for normal metabolic body process [3]. F.A.O reported that the recommended daily consumption of animal protein should be 56 g per day per person, but unfortunately, Nigerians cannot meet this requirement due to the high cost of these products [4]. Christopher et al. reported that Nigerians consume only 15 g of animal protein per day [5].

The main problem confronting livestock producers in Nigeria today is the unavailability and high cost of the conventional feed ingredients. Prohibitive increase in the cost of inputs especially that of feed is among the major constraints in commercial broiler production. The increasing demands for feed ingredients as industrial raw materials is not only aggravating the poor situation but pushing the market prices of the conventional feed ingredients to alarming heights [6]. The composition between human and livestock for some common feed raw materials worsen the feed situation generally for livestock and mostly for monogastric [7]. The poultry producers will then ask “what is the way out? The production of low priced high-quality safe feed may be seen to be a way out”[7]. To arrest this problem, research efforts are been geared towards sourcing for unconventional agro-industrial by-products that may replace or supplement the conventional one [8,9]. Thus, improvement and sustainable growth of poultry production entail alternative feed resources which must be safe, cheap, abundant and not in competition with other demands. Hence, the need to explore other non-conventional, farm or industrial by-products those are locally available and relatively cheaper.

The aim of every farmer is to have the best product at minimum cost thereby maximizing profit. For Nigerian and developing countries poultry industry to be competitive, there is a need to reduce the cost of production through an effective search for alternative feed resources. Umoren at el; asserted that for a feedstuff to qualify as an alternative, the ingredients must be cheap, readily available and not used as a stable food for man but should meet the nutritional requirements of farm animals [10]. Hence the focus on RMR in this study. It was, therefore, the objective of this study to determine the cost benefits/economics of production of broiler chickens in response to the dietary level of Rice Milling Residue (RMR) replacing Wheat Offal (WO) as a fiber source in broiler chicken diets.

Rice milling residue (RMR)

Rice milling residue (RMR) also known as Rice Offal or Rice milling waste, is the by-product obtained from small-scale rice mills that process parboiled rice. Dafwang and Shwarmen reported that RMR contains the husk, grain polishing and small qualities of broken grains [11]. Wudiri estimated that small-scale rice mills process over 80% of the rice produced in Nigeria and that rice offal makes up 40% of parboiled rice, Nigeria, therefore, has the potentials to produce 200,000 metric tonnes of rice offal from the 500,000 metric tons of rice produced in Nigeria annually [12]. It is obtained at no extra cost or most often gives away price since they are produced all year round and usually discarded as a waste product. Most often it is burnt off to reduce environmental nuisance and pollution. In spite of the abundance of rice offal, it has been neglected as animal feed because of its high level of fiber and low protein and energy [13].

Materials and Methods

Location of study

The study was carried out at the poultry unit of the Research Farm of Taraba State College of Agriculture, Ardo-Kola Local Government Area of Taraba State in the North-East geopolitical zone of Nigeria. It lies between latitude 8050” North and longitude 110 23” East of the equator in the Guinea Savannah zone [14]. There are two main seasons existing in the area of study-dry and rainy seasons. It has an annual rainfall of 100-1500 mm with a temperature range of 30°C-42°C depending on the season [14]. The State is characterized by a tropical climate.

Experimental stock and management

Three hundred (300) day old Anak white mixed sex broiler chicks were used for the study. The chicks were brooded together on a deep litter management system for a period of one (1) week during which commercial feed and water were provided ad libitum. Similarly, all necessary management practices were strictly adhered to.

Experimental diets and design

Five (5) experimental diets were used for the study. The 5 dietary treatments of sixty (60) birds per treatment designated T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. Each treatment has three (3) replicates of twenty (20) birds. Diets were formulated in which RMR replaced WO at 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 respectively with T1 serving as a control. A conventional poultry house with deep litter floor pens was used with treatment arranged in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). Feeding trials lasted for eight (8) weeks with feed and water supplied adlibitum.

The composition of experimental diet for broiler starter diets

The ingredient composition of broiler finisher diet is presented in (Table 1). It comprises 48.59% maize and 32.01% soybean across the treatment groups. There was inclusion of WO at 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0%, while RMR had an inclusion level of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% for T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 respectively. All other ingredients were the same across treatment diets.

Levels of replacing of WO with RMR (%)
Ingredient	(0%) T1	(25%) T2	(50%) T3	(75%) T4	(100%) T5
Maize	48.59	48.59	48.59	48.59	48.59
Soya bean	32.01	32.01	32.01	32.01	32.01
Wheat offal	10	7.5	5.0	2.5	0
Rice Milling Residue	0	2.5	5.0	7.5	10
Fish Meal	5	5	5	5	5
Bone Meal	2	2	2	2	2
Lime Stone	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
Salt	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25
Premix*	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25
Lysine	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Methionine	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Total Calculated analysis	100	100	100	100	100
Crude Protein	23.05	22.98	22.91	22.84	22.77
ME/kcal/kg energy	2909.37	2929.3	2949.37	2969.37	2989.37
Crude fibre (%)	3.30	3.63	3.59	3.53	3.68
Calcium (%)	1.55	1.58	1.55	1.55	1.56
Phosphorous (%)	0.90	0.92	0.93	0.95	0.97
Lysine (%)	1.64	1.63	1.62	1.61	1.60
Methionine (%)	0.41	0.52	0.41	0.42	0.42

Table 1: Ingredients composition of broiler starter diets (1-4 weeks).

Ingredients composition of experimental broiler finisher diets

The ingredients composition of experimental broiler finisher diets is presented in (Table 2). It comprises 55.16% maize and 25.44% of soya bean across the entire treatment groups. The inclusion levels of WO and RMR was as obtained in starter diet. Likewise, all other ingredients composition is the same across the entire treatment groups. The calculated Crude Protein (CP) was 20% across the entire treatment groups, while metabolizable energy ranges between 2929.08-3008.08 ME/ Kcal/kg.

Levels of replacing of WO with RMR (%)
Ingredient	(0%) T1	(25%) T2	(50%) T3	(75%) T4	(100%) T5
Maize	55.16	55.16	55.16	55.16	55.16
Soya bean	25.44	25.44	25.44	25.44	25.44
Wheat offal	10	7.5	5.0	2.5	0
Rice Milling Residue	0	2.5	5.0	7.5	10
Fish Meal	5	5	5	5	5
Bone Meal	2	2	2	2	2
Lime Stone	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
Salt	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25
Premix*	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25
Lysine	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Methionine	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Total Calculated analysis	100	100	100	100	100
Crude Protein	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00	20.00
ME/kcal/kg energy	2929.08	2949.08	2969.08	2989.08	3008.08
Crude fibre (%)	3.17	3.22	3.27	3.32	3.37
Calcium (%)	1.54	1.54	1.54	1.53	1.53
Phosphorous (%)	0.87	0.89	0.91	0.92	0.94
Lysine (%)	1.43	1.42	1.41	1.40	1.39
Methionine (%)	0.38	0.39	0.38	0.39	0.39

Table 2: Composition of broiler finisher diets (5-8) weeks.

Proximate analysis

Proximate analysis of the experimental diets (starter and finisher) was carried out to determine the Dry Matter (DM), Crude Protein (CP), Crude Fiber (CF), Ether Extract (EE), Nitrogen Free Extract (NFE) and Ash content using procedure outlined by AOAC [15].

Statistical analysis

All data generated were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) according to Steel and Torrie [16]. Differences between treatment means were compared using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) [17].

Results and Discussion

The proximate composition of RMR is presented in Table 3. The Crude Protein (CP) of 8.75% higher than 6.2% reported by Obeka [18] and lower than 13.50% reported by Bata and Dale that may be attributed to different processing methods [19]. However, it falls within the range of 6.72-10.03% reported by Ambashankar and Chandrasekan [13]. The CF of 36.99% is in line with 37.60% reported by Obeka [18]. The Ash content of 20.12% also reported by Oyeyiola [20]. EE of 5.14% also agreed with 5.52% and 5.01% reported by Obeka and Oyeyiola respectively [18,20]. NFE level of 25.66% is lower than 30.54% reported by Obeka and higher than 23.38% reported by Oyeyiola [18,20].

Nutrient	Composition (%)
Dry Matter (DM)	93.65
Crude Protein (CP)	8.75
Crude Fibre (CF)	36.99
Ash	20.12
Ether Extract (EE)	5.14
Nitrogen Free Extract (NFE)	25.66

Table 3: Proximate composition (%) Rice Milling Residue (RMR).

Proximate composition of the experimental starter and finisher diets

The proximate composition of the experimental starter and finisher diets is presented in Table 4. The starter CP ranged between 23.25%-23. 81% falls within the recommended value of 22%-24% by Olomu [21]. Also agreed with Alaku that young growing poultry requires greater levels of protein than an adult, the CP value of finisher diet ranges between 20.02%-20.25% [22]. It is within the range of 19.67%-20.36% reported by Akinimutimi [23] and also in agreement with the recommended 20% protein requirement by Firman [24]. The CF values of 2.80%-50.05% were recorded in both starter and finisher phases. The crude fiber value is within the recommended values of 3.0%-6.0% by Olomu [21]. The proximate analysis result shows that the diets were similar and met the recommended nutrient requirements of poultry chickens.

	Starter Diets					Finisher Diets
Composition%	0	25	50	75	100	0	25	50	75	100
Dry Matter (%)	95.45	95.18	95.26	95.11	95.99	95.03	94.99	94.99	95.04	95.07
Crude Protein (%)	23.36	23.81	23.63	23.25	23.3	20.25	20.16	20.02	20.1	20.31
Crude Fibre (%)	2.8	3.63	3.92	4.58	5.05	2.81	3.64	3.6	3.39	3.5
Ash (%)	4.06	2.97	3	3.03	3.18	3.46	3.28	3.44	3.26	2.74
Ether Extract (%)	10.4	10.4	9.45	8.52	13.71	7.59	8.79	9.1	9.02	9.82
Nitrogen Free extract (%)	54.83	55.84	55.26	55.73	50.75	60.92	59.12	58.83	59.27	58.7

Table 4: Proximate composition of the experimental broiler starter and finisher diets.

Table 5 shows the economics of production of broiler chickens fed RMR as a partial replacement of WO. The values of total feed intake per bird/kg are 5.18, 5.22, 5.55, 5.37 and 5.36 kg/bird for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 respectively. T3 recorded the highest cost of total feed intake of N773.73 per bird/kg followed by T1 (N755.50 and the least in T5 (N712.72) per bird/kg. T3 had the highest cost of feed intake (N773.73) and least weight gained of 1.72 kg/bird. It must be noted that T5 recorded the highest weight gained (1.89 g) despite the fact that it recorded the least feed intake, that is a huge economic advantage over the rest. The feed cost (N/kg) was also least in T5 and highest in T3. The cost saving (N/kg) was also better in T5 (N38.01) and least in T3 (-N34.52). That means N34.52 spent above the control diet (T1) for every kg of feed formulated whereas N38.01 gained on T5 for the same quantity of feed formulated. The cost saving was negative in T3 and T4 since it is the cost of total feed intake divided by weight gained subtracted from the control (T1).

Levels of replacement of WO with RMR (%)
Parameters	0%	25%	50%	75%	100%
Total Feed Intake (Kg/bird)	5.18	5.22	5.55	5.37	5.36
Feed Cost (N/kg)	145.85	142.63	139.41	136.19	132.97
Cost of Total Feed Intake (N/kg)	755.5	744.53	773.73	731.34	712.72
Total Weight gain (kg)	1.82	1.87	1.72	1.69	1.89
Feed Cost (N/kg gain)	415.11	398.14	449.73	432.75	377.1
Cost Saving (N/kg gain)	-	16.97	-34.52	-17.64	38.01

Table 5: Economics of production of broiler chickens fed RMR as partial replacement to WO.

The economic analysis of the production of broiler chickens fed RMR as a partial replacement of WO as a fiber source is affected by the level of replacement since there is a relationship between the cost of total feed intake, total weight gain and feed cost. The use of RMR as a fiber source instead of WO has resulted in cost savings of N38.01 for every kg of feed formulated. This agreed with Abu et al. that feeds cost decreased with increased levels of rice offal inclusion [25]. Rice offal inclusion generally leads to a reduction in feed cost. Yakubu et al. also observed that treatment of rice offal with urea also leads to an economic advantage as inclusion reduces the cost of production [26]. Although RMR was not used as a major ingredient in this study, it’s economic benefits can be very huge in a large scale commercial farm. The result shows that T5 (100%) RMR as a fiber source leads to least feed intake and highest weight gain leading to huge economic advantage/ benefits.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The use of RMR as a fiber source up to 100% inclusion level resulted in less feed intake and highest weight gained which ultimately led to huge cost benefits/savings. Based on this study, it is recommended that farmers should be encouraged to use RMR as a fiber source for broiler production.

References

1. Madubuike FN, Obidinma VN (2009) Brewer’s dried grain as energy source on external and internal egg qualities of laying hens. Proc 34th Ann Conf Nig Soc for Animal prod Uyo-Nigeria. 362-365.
2. Adejinmi OO, Adejinmi JO, Adeleye IOA (2000) Replacement value of fish meal with soldier fly larvae meal in broiler diets. J Br Poult Sci 1: 52-60.
3. Adegbola TA (1991) Effect of protein levels on growth and feed utilization of Rabbits in humid tropical environment. J Agric Sci Tech 158-160.
4. F.A.O (1997) Food and Agricultural Organization year book report, Rome, Italy. 100-110.
5. Christopher D, Pierre C, Claude C (1997) Impact of livestock and fisheries on food availability and demand in 2020. Am J Agric Econ 9: 1471-1475.
6. Sobamiwa O (1998) The effect of replacing maize with dried sweet potatoes on the performance of layers. Nigeria J Animal Prod 15: 99-102.
7. Abu OA (2013) Scarcity of feed raw materials for poultry production in Nigeria: the way out, published by the Animal Science Association of Nigeria (ASAN); 18th annual Conference. 193.
8. Babayemi OJ (2008) Assessment of palm kernel cake, wheat offal and brewers dried grain-based concentrate incubated with Guinea Grass on in vitro Gas Production and Methano genesisi. Proceeding of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Nigerian Society for Animal Production. 552-555.
9. Ayoade JA, Obaike ED, Uza DV, Ibeawuchi JA (2000) Performance and carcass characteristics of rabbits fed with different levels of dried bovine Rumen content. Journal of Sustainable Agricultural and Environment 2: 78-82
10. Umoren UE, Isika MA, Asanga EP, Azeigwe PN (2007) Effect of replacement of Earth ball (Icaci niamanni) meal on the performance of broiler chickens. Pak J Biol Sci 10: 2368-2373.
11. Dafwang IT, Shwanen EBN (1996) Utilization of rice offal in practice rations for chicks. Nigerian J Ani Prod 23: 21-23.
12. Wudiri BB (1991) Production of cereal crops in Nigeria. From research of farmers fields. A seminar paper delivered to staff and students at the Plateau State College of Agriculture, Lafia.
13. Ambashakar K, Chandresekan (1998) Chemical composition and metabolisable energy value of rice waste for chickens. J Indian Vet 475-476.
14. Taraba State Diary (2008) Ministry of Information Production-Jalingo, Taraba State, Nigeria. 7.
15. AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Educ. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC. U.S.A. 1230.
16. Steel RGD, Torrie JA (1980) Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometrical Approached, 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill, Kogakusha Ltd, Tokyo.
17. Duncan DB (1955) Multiple range and multiple F-Test biometrics. 1: 1-42.
18. Obeka EA (1985) Nutritive evaluation of rice offal in the diets of growing pullets and layers. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Animal Science. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
19. Bata A, Dale N (2010) Use of the rice bran in poultry diets; Organic Agriculture. Int J Poult Sci 9: 152-154.
20. Oyeyiola LBE (1991) Utilization of Rice Offal by egg-type chickens. M.Sc. Thesis Department of Animal Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
21. Olomu JM (2011) Monogastric animal nutrition principles and practice; 2nd Edn. 184.
22. Alaku SO (2010) Introduction to Animal Science. JEE Communication. 69-70.
23. Akinimtimi AH (2004) Effects of replacing maize with ripe plantain and yam peels in the diets of Weaner rabbits. J Anim Vet Adv 5: 737-740.
24. Firman JD (1993) Nutrient requirements of chickens and turkeys. Department of Animal Science, University of Missouri, Extension.
25. Abu OA, Igwebuike J, Danny CB, Mbaya MY, Umaru RS (1999) Growth performance and economy of production of rabbits fed urea treated and untreated rice husk based diets. Proc. 26th Annual Conference of Nigeria Society of Animal Prod 140-143.
26. Yakubu B, Adegbola TA, Bogoro S, Yusuf HB (2007a) Effect of urea treated and untreated rice offal on the performance of broilers: 1: Growth performance and economy of production. J Sustainable Development Agric Env 3: 7-13.