| Livestock Research for Rural Development 32 (1) 2020 | LRRD Search | LRRD Misssion | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
An experiment was carried out to study the effects of raw and roasted Prosopis juliflora pod (PJP) at different inclusion levels on egg laying performance. Bovans Brown layers (n=168), aged 24-weeks were used in a completely randomized design with seven treatments, each replicated three times with 8 birds per replicate. In the control treatment (CTL), chickens were fed 100% concentrate while on the other treatments, ground Prosopis juliflora pods were included at different levels i.e. roasted at levels of 10% (PJR10), 20% (PJR20), 30% (PJR30), and raw pods at 10 % ( PJ10), 20% (PJ20) and 30% (PJ30). Data on feed intake, Hen Day Egg Production (HDEP), egg weight and egg mass were recorded. Egg quality parameters were determined every week on 2 eggs per replicate.
There were no differences in feed intake, body weight gain, egg weight and egg quality parameters among treatments of raw and roasted PJP. The results suggest that raw and roasted Prosopis juliflora pods can be included in layer diets up to 30% without negative effect on health and performance.
Key words: legume trees, local feed resources, processing, roasting
Poultry production as part of the livestock sector plays a vital role of socio-economic importance in Ethiopia (Metaferia et al 2011; Tadelle and Ogle 2001). Almost every household owns chickens that are used as a source of income, nutrition and spending of time in rearing especially children and elders (Tadelle et al 2003). The chicken population in the country is estimated to be 59.5 million, with 91, 5 and 4 percent reported as indigenous, hybrid and exotic, respectively (CSA 2017). However, the economic contribution of the sector is low as compared to the huge number of chickens. This is due mainly to shortage of feed in addition to other management constraints (Fisseha et al 2010).
The use of agricultural and agro-industrial byproducts for livestock feed formulation results in fluctuation in quantity, quality and prices of the manufactured feed (Anyanwu et al 2008). There has been much interest over recent years to explore alternative feedstuffs because of rising costs for conventional feed ingredients. Therefore, using non-conventional feedstuffs as an alternative feed resource is vital (Gebregiorgis et al 2012). Utilization of Prosopis juliflora pods in livestock feeding is one possibility (Hinsa et al 2015; Admasu 2008).
Prosopis juliflora is known for invading millions of hectares of land which were under different land use systems in Africa, Asia, Australia and South America (Pasiecznik 1999; Mehari 2008). Regardless of its invasiveness, it is a potential resource for providing feed of small ruminants in the pastoral areas (Abdelnoor et al 2010). Similarly, Meseret et al (2011) indicated that Prosopis juliflora pods (PJP) can be included up to 20% in layers’ ration, but when the inclusion level reached 30% the egg mass, weight and feed to egg mass ratio were reduced (Silva et al 2002). Little is known about the effect of treatment such as roasting on nutritional and chemical properties of the pods. This study was therefore conducted to investigate the effect of raw and roasted PJP inclusion in layers’ rations on feed intake, laying performance and egg quality.
The research was conducted at Mekelle University poultry farm. The University is located at 13o 27 N 39o 01E, and at an altitude range of 2000 to 2200 masl. The area has a semi-arid climate with annual rainfall range of 500 - 700 mm. Annual temperature ranges from 20 to 40oC.
Bovan’s brown pullets (n=168), aged 24 weeks, were allocated to seven dietary treatments in a completely randomized design with 24 hens in each treatment, which were further divided into three replicates, each with 8 birds. The birds were adapted to the experimental diets for 7 days before data collection over 90 days.
The dietary treatments were raw PJP at rates of 0, 10, 20 and 30% and roasted PJP at 10, 20 and 30% levels described as PJR10, PJR20 and PJR30. Dietary treatments were formulated to be iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous.
Roasted and raw Prosopis juliflora pods, soybean meal, wheat bran, noug seedcake (Guizotiaa byssinica), limestone, salt and vitamin premix were used. Prosopis juliflora pods were collected from Alamata district, Tigray. The pods for PJR treatments were roasted at 80 oC for 30 minutes using a locally made steel plate and heated by wood flame. The pods were ground in a hammer mill with a sieve size of 2mm. The other ingredients were purchased from Mekelle local market.
Birds were vaccinated against Newcastle Disease, infectious bronchitis, infectious bursal disease, fowl pox and fowl typhoid. They were housed in experimental pens partitioned using wire-mesh. The concrete floor was covered with 6-10 cm depth of wheat straw as litter. Water was provided ad libitum throughout the experiment period. Individual laying nests, covered with wheat straw, were placed in each pen and artificial light used for 16 hours per day throughout the experiment. Feed was offered twice a day at 0800 and 1500h
Feed samples were analyzed for dry matter, ether extract (EE), crude fiber (CF), crude protein (CP), Ca, P and ash following the proximate analysis procedures (AOAC 1990).
Feed offered and refused was recorded daily. Body weights were taken at the commencement of the experiment and at weekly intervals throughout the study. Daily weight gains and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated based on the standard procedures.
Eggs were collected three times a day. Egg production was calculated on a hen-day basis (Hunton 1995) as.
|
Eggs collected daily were weighed immediately and average egg weight was calculated.
Egg mass (g/hen/day) = Number of egges x average weight/ Number of hens
After breaking the eggs on a flat tray, the weights of shells were measured. Shell thickness was measured using electronic digital calipers after removing the membrane from the egg shell. The egg shell thickness was the mean of the three measurements at blunt, middle and sharp points of the egg.
Albumen height was measured immediately after breaking the eggs using electronic digital caliphers and the weight was computed by deducting the yolk weight and shell weight from egg weight. Haugh unit was calculated from albumin height and egg weight using the formula of Haugh (1937).
HU = 100 log (AH +7.6–1.7 EW0.37); Where HU = Haugh unit
AH = Albumen height, EW = Egg weight
Yolk diameter and height were measured using electronic digital calipers after separation of the yolk from the albumen. The weight of the yolk was measured by sensitive balance. Yolk index was estimated in percentage, taking the ratio of their respective heights to the average diameter (breadth and length) using the following formula.
 |
Where: YI=Yolk index, YH=Yolk height, YD= Yolk diameter
The yolk color was compared with the Roche color fan. After removal of the yolk membrane, the whole yolk was thoroughly mixed and a sample was taken on a piece of white paper and compared with Roche fan measurement strips.
Except yolk color, which was analyzed by logistic regression, all other parameters were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the General Linear Model procedures of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 2004). Differences between treatment means were separated using Tukey Test at 5% probability level. Regression analysis was made to see the response of DM intake and egg shell weight to the inclusion level of Prosopis juliflora pod in the diet.
Chemical composition of feeds (Table 1).
|
Table 1. Composition of ingredients and diets (DM basis except for DM which is on air-dry basis) |
|||||||||
|
DM |
CP |
EE |
Ash |
CF |
Ca |
P |
ME # |
||
|
Maize grain |
90 |
8 |
4.5 |
2.2 |
2.4 |
0.04 |
0.29 |
3893 |
|
|
WS |
86 |
15.6 |
3.6 |
6.2 |
9.2 |
0.011 |
0.02 |
3077 |
|
|
NSC |
92.9 |
36.8 |
8.16 |
5 |
16 |
0.144 |
0 |
2771 |
|
|
PJP |
88.3 |
18 |
1.91 |
1.92 |
1.92 |
0.33 |
0.44 |
3806 |
|
|
SBM |
88.8 |
39.6 |
21.3 |
6.7 |
6.3 |
0.32 |
0.61 |
4277 |
|
|
Treatments |
|||||||||
|
PJ0 |
90.2 |
17 |
2.6 |
5.7 |
6.7 |
0.17 |
3.27 |
2816 |
|
|
PJR10 |
90.38 |
17 |
2.6 |
5.43 |
5.98 |
0.21 |
3.3 |
2800 |
|
|
PJR20 |
90.27 |
16.89 |
2.7 |
5.17 |
5.18 |
0.25 |
3.33 |
2800 |
|
|
PJR30 |
89.86 |
16.31 |
2.5 |
4.71 |
4.38 |
0.28 |
3.35 |
2721 |
|
|
PJ10 |
90.38 |
17 |
2.6 |
5.43 |
5.98 |
0.21 |
3.3 |
2800 |
|
|
PJ20 |
90.27 |
16.89 |
2.7 |
5.17 |
5.18 |
0.25 |
3.33 |
2800 |
|
|
PJ30 |
89.86 |
16.31 |
2.5 |
4.71 |
4.38 |
0.28 |
3.35 |
2721 |
|
|
DM = % dry matter; CP = crude protein; EE = ether extract; CF = crude fiber; Ca= calcium; P= phosphorus; ME# = metabolizable energy; PJP= Prosopis juliflora pod; PJR = Prosopis juliflora roasted; NSC=noug seed cake; MG=maize grain; WS=wheat short; SBM=soybean meal |
|||||||||
There was a decreasing tendency for DMI in both raw and roasted treatments (Table 2). Hen day egg production (HDEP), egg mass and feed conversion also showed a descending pattern as the inclusion of PJP increased.
Egg shell weight showed ascending pattern with increment of PJP (Table 3). Egg weight, egg shell thickness, Haugh unit values, albumen and yolk quality traits did not show variation across treatment diets (Table 3).
The effect of Prosopis juliflora on DM intake and egg shell weight is presented in Figures 1 and 2. The egg shell weight increased with the increased level of Prosopis juliflora pod in the diet. In contrast, the DM intake decreased slightly with the increased level of Prospis juliflora pod across the treatments.
 |
| Figure 1. Response of egg shell weight to inclusion level of Prosopis juliflora pod in the diet |
 |
| Figure 2. Response of DM intake to inclusion level of Prosopis juliflora pod in the diet |
|
Table 2. Dry matter intake, body weight gain and egg laying performance of Bovans Brown hens fed different levels of raw and roasted PJP |
|||||||||
|
Parameters |
PJ0 |
PJR10 |
PJR20 |
PJR30 |
PJ10 |
PJ20 |
PJ30 |
SEM |
p |
|
Initial BW (g) |
1430 |
1453 |
1462 |
1416 |
1454 |
1458 |
1404 |
3.9 |
0.98 |
|
Final BW (g) |
1918 |
1930 |
1980 |
1917 |
1957 |
1937 |
1961 |
3.5 |
0.91 |
|
BW gain (g/) |
487 |
477 |
517 |
501 |
503 |
479 |
556 |
3.6 |
0.89 |
|
DMI (g) |
90.9 |
91.5 |
90.7 |
89.8 |
90.6 |
89.6 |
88.9 |
0.63 |
0.67 |
|
EM (g/hen/d) |
37.0 |
34.6 |
34.0 |
33.5 |
33.1 |
32.1 |
32.6 |
2.73 |
0.44 |
|
Egg wt (g) |
55 |
54.8 |
54.6 |
54.5 |
54.4 |
54.3 |
54.2 |
0.28 |
0.51 |
|
HDEP (%) |
42.5 |
41.05 |
40.83 |
40 |
41.16 |
39.50 |
40.3 |
1.36 |
0.25 |
|
FCR (g feed /gegg) |
2.68 |
2.66 |
2.53 |
2.53 |
2.53 |
2.56 |
2.50 |
0.09 |
0.15 |
|
Table 3. External and internal egg quality traits of laying hens fed different levels of raw and processed PJP |
|||||||||
|
PJ0 |
PJR10 |
PJR20 |
PJR30 |
PJ10 |
PJ20 |
PJ30 |
SEM |
p |
|
|
Egg weight (g) |
55 |
54.8 |
54.65 |
54.52 |
54.47 |
54.35 |
54.25 |
0.28 |
0.5120 |
|
Shell weight (g) |
5.36b |
5.46ab |
5.56ab |
5.65ab |
5.75ab |
5.85a |
5.86a |
0.16 |
0.0070 |
|
Shell thickness (mm) |
0.32 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.34 |
0.35 |
0.35 |
0.04 |
0.290 |
|
Albumen height (mm) |
8.28 |
8.06 |
8.02 |
8.05 |
8.08 |
7.98 |
7.94 |
0.3 |
0.992 |
|
Albumen weight (g) |
33.83 |
33.64 |
33.51 |
33.38 |
33.31 |
33.2 |
33.17 |
0.35 |
0.905 |
|
Yolk height (mm) |
15.52 |
15.45 |
15.48 |
15.43 |
15.44 |
15.36 |
15.35 |
0.21 |
0.988 |
|
Yolk weight (g) |
15.81 |
15.69 |
15.58 |
15.48 |
15.4 |
15.3 |
15.21 |
0.29 |
0.807 |
|
Yolk color score |
3.29 |
3.43 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.71 |
3.78 |
3.85 |
0.26 |
0.661 |
|
Yolk diameter (mm) |
3.65 |
3.62 |
3.58 |
3.52 |
3.5 |
3.46 |
3.44 |
0.12 |
0.101 |
|
Yolk index |
0.42 |
0.43 |
0.43 |
0.44 |
0.44 |
0.44 |
0.45 |
0.05 |
0.419 |
|
Haugh unit |
92.42 |
92.23 |
92.1 |
91.83 |
91.67 |
91.42 |
91.22 |
0.44 |
0.839 |
|
abcd means within a row with different superscripts are different (p<0.05) |
|||||||||
The study showed that there was no variation in chemical composition of raw and roasted PJP. The CP content of PJP (18.5%) was within the range of 12.1-23.3% CP as reported by Himsa et al (2015) and comparable with the findings of Chaturvedi and Sahoo (2013) (18.3%) but higher than the value 9 – 17% reported by Shukla et al (1984). The 88.3 % DM of PJP is lower than the value 91.81% reported by Meseret et al (2011). The difference in nutrient contents of PJP across various studies could be attributed to the variation in plant variety, soil conditions, climatic factors, plant’s growing environment, harvesting stage, storage condition and processing.
There was a tendency for increase in DM intake and egg shell weight with the increase of Prosopis juliflora pod in the diet. This indicates that PJP can be included in layer diet up to 30% without negative effect on feed utilization and egg production. Similarly, Yusuf et al (2008) also found no effect on feed intake of broilers fed on prosopis seed meal in different levels and forms (raw and processed). In contrast, Meseret et al (2011)reported differences in DM intake of layers fed on diets with different ground PJP inclusion levels. This might be attributed to the pod processing method and fiber content of the diets. In the current study no sifference was observed in HDEP for layers fed on roasted and raw PJP. This indicates the concentration of anti-nutritive factors due to inclusion of PJP was within the tolerable range of the layers. There was no variation detected in egg weight due to different inclusion levels of PJP. Similarly, egg mass did not show variation due to PJP inclusion. In contrast to these findings, Silva et al (2002) reported reduced egg mass with a 30% inclusion level of PJP fed to layer hens. No difference was observed on feed conversion ratio of birds fed on processed and raw PJP. This result is in line with findings of Meseret et al (2011), from layers fed on different levels of ground PJP diets.
Egg shell thickness did not vary among the chickens fed on raw and processed PJP, but a difference was seen on egg shell weight (Table 3). An increment trend was observed in egg shell weight as the level of pod meal increased from 0% to 30% for both roasted and raw prosopis diets. The lowest shell weight (5.36 g) was seen in eggs collected from the control birds (no pod meal).
Albumen weight, height and Haugh unit (HU) of the eggs did not vary with level of raw and processed PJP in the diet. Absence of difference in these parameters among the treatments indicates that inclusion of raw and processed PJP up to 30% does not affect HU values. Lower hen day egg production and egg mass at 30% GPJP inclusion level of roasted and raw PJP is consistent with the finding of Meseret et al (2011) who reported similar result in Bovans Brown commercial layers fed 30% ground Prosopis juliflora meal.
Except for egg yolk color, differences were not apparent in egg quality parameters in this study. The results were in line with the values reported for Bovans Brown breeds by Swiatkiewicz et al (2010). The result of egg quality of this study indicated that Prosopis juliflora pod can be included up to 30% in layers’ ration without negative effect on egg quality.
The authors would like to thank Mekelle University for financial and logistic provision to undertake this research. Mr. Amanuel Berhe is acknowledged for providing poultry farm facilities for the experiment.
Abedelnoor T, Talib N, Mabrouk A, Mohamed M, El-Mahi M, and Abu-Eisa H 2010 The use of alternative animal feeds to enhance food security and environmental protection in the Sudan (The case for Prosopis Juliflora). PENHA-APRC 2009. www.penhanetwork.org
Admassu Y M 2008 Assessment of livestock feed resources utilization in Alaba Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. MSc thesis (Animal Production). 127p. Haramaya (Ethiopia): Haramaya University.
Anyanwu G A, Iheukwumere F C and Emerode F C 2008 Performance, carcass characteristics and economy of broilers fed maize-grit and brewer's dried grain replacing maize. International Journal of Poultry Science, 7: 156–160.
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) 1990 Official Method of Analysis. 5th ed. AOAC. Inc. Arlington, Virginia, USA.1298p.
Chaturvedi O H and Sahoo A 2013 Nutrient utilization and rumen metabolism in sheep fed Prosopis juliflora pods and Cenchrus grass. SpringerPlus, 2(1), 598.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2017 Agricultural sample survey, 2016/17 (2009 E.C), Volume II: Report on Livestock and livestock characteristics (Private peasant holdings). Statistical Bulletin 585. Central Statistical Agency (CSA), Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fisseha M, Azage T and Tadelle D 2010 Chicken production and marketing systems in Ethiopia: Characteristics and opportunities for market-oriented development. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 24.Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI.
Gebregiorgis F, Negesse T and Nurfeta A 2012 Feed intake and utilization in sheep fed graded levels of dried moringa (Moringa stenopetala) leaf as a supplement to Rhodes grass hay. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44(3), 511-517.
Haugh R R 1937 The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. U.S. Egg Poultry Magazine, 43: 552-553 and 572-573. In: Hasin, B.M., A.J.M. Ferdaus, M.A. Islam, M.J. Uddin and M.S. Islam, 2006. Marigold and orange skin as egg yolk color promoting agents. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 5: 979-987.
Hintsa K, Balehegn M, and Birhane E 2015 Utilization of pods of Prosopis juliflora, an invasive tree, as a replacement to concentrate feed for goats in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 27, Article #180. Retrieved September 16, 2019, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/9/kida27180.html
Hunton P 199 Egg production, processing and marketing. In: World Poultry Science, Elsevier, Tokyo. pp 457-480.
Manhique A J, King’ori A M and Wachira A M 2017 Effect of ground mature prosopis (Prosopis juliflora) pods inclusion in layer diets on performance of improved indigenous chicken in Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 29, Article #19. Retrieved September 16, 2019, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd29/1/manh29019.htm
Mehari Z 2008 Invasion of Prosopis juliflora (SW.) DC and Rural Livelihoods. The Case of Afar Pastoralists at Middle Awash Area of Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Norwegian University of Life Science, Oslo, 3 pp
Meseret G, Mengistu U and Getachew A 2011 Ground ProsopisjulifloraPod as Feed Ingredient in Poultry Diet: Effects on Laying Performance and Egg Quality. International Journal of Poultry Science, 10 (11), 879-885.
Metaferia F, Cherenet T G, Abnet F, Tesfay A, Abdi J and Gulilat W 2011 A review to improve estimation of livestock contribution to the national GDP.
Pasiecznik N 1999 Prosopis - pest or providence, weed or wonder tree? European Tropical Forest Research Network newsletter. 28:12-14.
SAS Institute 2004 SAS User’s Guide. Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC., USA.
Shukla P C, Talpada P M and Pande M B 1984 Agro-Industrial byproducts as livestock feed. Prosopis juliflora pods a new cattle feed source. Technical Bulletin, I.C.A.R. Animal Nutrition Department, Gujarat Agricultural University, Anand, - 388110, India.
Silva J H V D, Silva E L D, Jordão Filho J, Toledo R S, Albino L F T, Ribeiro M L G and Couto H P 2002 Energy values and effects of integral mesquite pods (Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC) meal inclusion in commercial laying hens diets. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 31(6), 2255-2264.
Swiatkiewicz S, Koreleski J and Arczewska-Wlosek A 2010 Egg performance, egg quality, and nutrient utilization in laying hens fed diets with different levels of rapeseed expeller cake.
Tadelle D and Ogle B 2001 Village poultry production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal health and production, 33(6), 521-537.
Tadelle D, Kijora C and Peters K J 2003 Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in Ethiopia: Growth and Feed Utilization Potentials. International Journal of Poultry Science, 2(2), 144-52.
Yusuf N D, Ogah D M, Hassan D I, Musa M M and Doma U D 2008 Effect of Decorticated Fermented Prosopis Seed Meal (Prosopis Africana) on Growth Performance of Broiler Chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci, 7(11), 1054-57.
Received 16 September 2019; Accepted 14 December 2019; Published 2 January 2020