ABSTRACT
Two studies were conducted to determine growth and fattening performance of Yankasa
rams fed complete containing urea and lime treated groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) shell.
The shell was treated with 5% urea, 5% lime and 2.5% of urea and lime for each known
weight of the shell (50g/kg shell). In the first study four treatment diets were formulated
containing 40% untreated groundnut shell (UNTGNS), 40% urea treated groundnut shell
(UTGNS), 40% lime treated groundnut shell (LTGNS) and 40% urea plus lime treated
groundnut shell (ULMTGNS). Other ingredients were maize offal, cotton seed cake, bone
meal ruminants‟ premix and salt. 20 Yankasa ram lambs of 9-10 months were used and
randomly assigned to the four treatments diets with five animals per treatment in
completely randomized design (CRD). The diets were formulated to contain 15% crude
protein (CP) content. The growth trial lasted for 90 days. Three ram lambs from each of the
treatment groups were randomly selected and housed in individual metabolism crates for
digestibility Parameters measured were daily feed intake, daily weight gain; feed
conversion ratio, blood metabolites digestibility, nitrogen retention, cost and apparent
profit. Second study was conducted to determine effect of the treated groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea) shell in fattening Yankasa rams. The treatment diets were adjusted to 14% C P
content. Sixteen Yankasa rams were used and randomly assigned to the four treatment
diets with four animals per treatment in a completely randomized design (CRD). The
fattening trial lasted for 90 days. Three rams from each of the treatment groups were
randomly selected and housed in individual metabolism crates for digestibility study.
Rumen liquor was collected. Carcass analysis was carried out using three rams from each
of the treatment group. Measured parameters were feed intake, weight gain, digestibility,
nitrogen balance, rumen microbial load, total nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, total volatile
fatty acid, carcass characteristics and cost benefit. Results of the first study indicated that
ram lambs fed ULMTGNS diet had the highest daily feed intake of 88.69g/day. However
highest daily weight gain (94.66g) was observed in ram lambs fed LTGNS diet with least
in ram lambs on UTGNS. In feed conversion ratio ram lambs on LTGNS diet had the least
mean values (8.94) and were significantly (P<0.05) different from those on UTGNS and
ULMTGNS diets. Ram lambs on UTGNSU diet showed better digestibility coefficient
among the treatment diets (49.99%). Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) was higher than normal
values reported by other authors (2.8-7.1Mmol/L). Creatinine range of (123.17-
150.00Mmol/L) across the treatment diets was in conformity with the normal value (106-
168Mmol/L). Total protein was within the range of the normal values (60-79g/L). The
result of nitrogen intake was significantly (P<0.05) higher in rams lambs fed ULMTGNS
diet compared with the other treatment groups. Nitrogen retained as percent intake was
significantly (P<0.05) higher in the UTGNS, LTGNS and ULMTGNS diets than the
UNTGNS. Results of the economic analysis of growing ram lambs showed that ram lambs
on LTGNS diet had the highest feed cost (₦5142.43) and those on ULMTGNS diet had the
highest total weight gain (8.58Kg), followed by those fed LTGNS diet but a better apparent
xviii
profit was realized from ram lambs fed UNTGNS diet (N1774.50). The results of the
second study showed that rams fed UNTGNS diet had the highest daily dry matter intake
(1027.37g) with least mean value in those on UTGNS. Rams fed UTGNS had the least
daily weight gain (77.78g) rams on UNTGNS diet still had the highest daily weight gain.
Feed conversion ratio was least but better in rams fed UNTGNS diet. Rams on UTGNSU
diet had the highest digestibility coefficient in most of the feed components. Highest
nitrogen absorbed and N retained as % intake were recorded in rams fed UNTGNS and
ULMTGNS diets. Higher ammonia nitrogen and total volatile fatty acids were observed in
rams fed UNTGNS diet. On rumen microbial load, more bacteria were observed in animals
fed UTGNS diet followed by those on UNTGNS diet. The dressing percentage of the rams
fed UNTGNS diet (53%) was higher followed by those on LTGNS diet. But the meat yield
percentage was higher in rams fed LTGNS diet, with a better meat bone ratio in rams on
ULMTGNS diet. Results of the studies showed that daily feed intake and weight gain were
better in growing ram lambs fed LTGNS diet, but for fattening, rams on UNTGNS diet had
the better daily intake and daily weight gain. However, the cost benefit analysis of both the
growing and fattening rams showed that rams on UNTGNS diet had the highest apparent
profit followed by those on urea treated diet. It can be concluded that ground shell of
groundnut can be used in diet formulation of small ruminants. Inclusion of up to 40% is
recommended.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page iii
Declaration iv
Certification v
Dedication vi
Acknowledgements vii
Table of Contents ix
List of Tables xvii
List of Abbreviations xx
Abstract xxii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Justification of the Study 3
1.2 Objectives of the Study 4
1.3 Hypotheses: 5
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Origin, Distribution and Population of Small ruminants in Nigeria 6
2.1.1 Origin and distribution 6
2.1.2 Population 7
2.2 Importance of Small ruminants in Nigeria 7
2.2.1 Source of meat 7
2.2.2 Religious, social and cultural use in festival 8
2.2.3 Source of manure 9
2.2.4 Importance of revenue 9
2.2.5 An investment opportunity 10
2.3 Breeds of Sheep in Nigeria 10
2.3.1 Balami 11
2.3.2 Uda 11
2.3.3 Yankasa 12
2.3.4 West African dwarf sheep 12
2.3.5 Bororo 13
2.4 Small Ruminants Production Systems in Nigeria 13
2.4.1 Extensive 13
2.4.2 Semi-Intensive 13
2.4.3 Intensive 14
2 .5 Nutrients Requirements of Sheep 14
2.5.1 Energy 14
x
2.5.2 Protein 17
2.5.3 Minerals 19
2.5.4 Vitamins 26
2.5.5 Water 32
2.5.6 Ruminant premix 32
2.6 Factors Affecting Small Ruminants Production in Nigeria 33
2.6.1 Feeds 33
2.6.2 Diseases 34
2.6.3 Climate 35
2.6.4 Others factors 37
2.7 Available Feed Resources for Ruminants 38
2.7.1 Crop residues 38
2.7.2 Rangeland feed resources 38
2.8 Groundnut as Feed Resources 41
2.8.1 Groundnut hay and haulm 41
2.8.2 Groundnut cake as industrial by- product 42
2.8.3 Groundnut shell 43
2.9 Limitation of Crop Residues as Feed Resources to Small ruminants 46
2.9.1 Availability 46
2.9.2 Nutritive value 46
2.9.3 Nutrients digestibility 47
2.9.4 Others limitations 47
2.10 Methods of Improving Crop Residues. 48
2.10.1 Treatment of crop residues 50
2.10.2 Supplementation 59
2.11 Effect of Crop Residues Treatment on: 66
2.11.1 Feed intake 66
2.11.2 Digestibility 69
2.12 Growth and other parameters in sheep 71
2.12.1 Growth 71
2.12.2 Blood metabolites 74
2.12.3 Blood urea nitrogen 74
2.12.4 Blood creatinine 76
2.12.5 Blood total protein 76
2.12.6 Rumen metabolites 77
2.12.7 Rumen microbial load 80
2.13 Effects of Nutrition on Carcass Characteristics 81
2.13.1 Carcass quality 81
2.13.2 Dressing percentage 82
xi
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 83
3.1 Description of the Study Area 83
3.2 Source and Processing of Experimental Material 83
3.2.1 Ensiling 83
3.2.2 Experimental diets 84
3.3.1 Experimental animals and management 84
3.3.2 Experimental design 85
3.3.3 Growth feeding trial 85
3.3.4 Digestibility trial 87
3.3.5 Blood sampling 87
3.4.1 Experimental animals and treatments diets 89
3.4.2 Management and feeding of the experimental animals. 89
3.4.3 Digestibility study 91
3.4.4 Rumen liquor collection 92
3.4.5 Laboratory Analysis 92
3.5 Carcass Analysis 93
3.6 Statistical Analysis 93
3.7 Cost Benefit Analysis 94
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS 96
4.1. Chemical Composition of the Untreated, Urea and Lime Treated
Groundnut Shell 96
4.2. Chemical Composition of Growth Experiment Diets 96
4.3. Performance of Growing Yankasa Ram Lambs Fed UNTGNS,
UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS in a Complete Diet 99
4.4 Blood Metabolites Characteristics 101
4.5 Nutrients Digestibility and Nitrogen Retention of the Growing
Yankasa Ram Lambs 105
4.5.1. Nutrient digestibility of the growing Yankasa ram lambs 105
4.5.2. Nitrogen retention 107
4.6 Cost Benefit Analysis 109
4.7. Chemical Composition of Fattening Diets 111
4.8 Effect of UNTGNS, UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS Fed in a
Complete Diet on Fattening Yankasa Rams 113
xii
4.9 Nutrients Digestibility and Nitrogen Retention in Fattening
Yankasa Rams 115
4.9.1 Nutrients digestibility 115
4.9.2 Nitrogen retention 117
4.10 Characteristics of Rumen Metabolites in Fattening Yankasa Rams 119
4.11 Rumen Microbial Load of the Fattening Yankasa Rams 122
4.12 Carcass Characteristics of the Fattening Yankasa Rams Fed Urea
and Lime Treated Groundnut Shell in a Complete Diet 125
4.13 Effect Urea and Lime Treated groundnut shell in a Complete Diet
on prime cuts of Fattening Yankasa Rams 127
4.14 Effect of Urea and Lime Treated Groundnut Shell in a Complete
Diet on Non Carcass Components of the Fattening Yankasa
Rams 129
4.15 Cost Benefit Analysis of Fattening Yankasa Rams 131
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 Chemical Composition of UNTGNS, UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS 133
5.2 Chemical Composition of Growth Diets 133
5.3 Growth Performance of Growing Yankasa Ram Lambs Fed UNTGNS,
UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS in a Complete Diet 133
5.4 Blood Metabolites Characteristics 134
5.5 Nutrients Digestibility and Nitrogen Retention 135
5.6 Cost Benefit Analysis 136
5.7 Chemical Composition of Fattening Yankasa Rams Experimental Diets 136
5.8 Fattening Performance of Yankasa Rams Fed Groundnut Shell Treated
with Urea and Lime in a Complete Diet 137
5.9 Nutrients Digestibility and Nitrogen Retention in Fattening
Yankasa Rams 138
5.10 Rumen Metabolites in the Fattening Yankasa Rams 139
5.11 Rumen Microbial Load of the Fattening Yankasa Rams 141
5.12 Dressing Percentage and Carcass Characteristics of the Fattening
Yankasa Rams Fed UNTGNS, UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS
in a Complete diet 141
5.13 Carcass Prime Cuts of the Fattening Yankasa Rams Fed
UNTGNS, UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS in a Complete Diet 142
5.14 The Non Carcass Components of the Fattening Yankasa Rams Fed
UNTGNS, UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS in a Complete Diet 143
5.15 Cost Benefit Analysis of Fattening Yankasa Rams Fed UNTGNS,
UTGNS, LTGNS and ULTGNS in a Complete Diet 143
xiii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Bourn et al. (2002) estimated Nigerian ruminants livestock population to be about13.9
million cattle, 22.1 million of sheep and 34.5million goats. FAO (2016) reported about
15.2 million cattle, 28 million goats, 23 million sheep in Nigeria. In spite of these
impressive statistics on sheep and goat, their potentials are not fully realized due to low
productivity, high mortality, low growth rate, low productive performance among others
(Mahadi, 2002).
Sheep are able to use marginal lands and crop residues as feed and are kept in Nigeria
mainly for meat (Bello, 2008). They are ranked second after cattle in terms of meat
production (FDLPCS, 1992). FAO (2016) reported sheep to contribute 16% of the total
domestically produced meat in Nigeria. Of the four breeds of sheep in Nigeria, Yankasa
sheep are perhaps the most widely and most numerous breed in the Northern part of the
country, they are found in the Sahel, Sudan and Guinea Savannah zones of the Country
(Gefu, 2002).
Increasing demand for rams and bucks as slaughter animals for meat can be satisfied
through fattening. The primary objective of fattening is to increase the live weight of the
animal and the quality of meat in relatively shorter period (Osuhor, 2002 ). Animal for
fattening is confined while feeds and water are ad-libitum throughout the fattening period,
though it can be achieved in a semi-intensive system, where they are offered more feed
supplements than the rest of the flock before or after released for grazing.
2
Feed is one of the important factors that limit livestock production in the tropics especially
during the dry season when high quality forages are scarce (Adebowale and Taiwo, 1996).
The cost of livestock feeds and feed ingredients in recent years has increased
tremendously. Hence, the cost of feeding has become a major problem of livestock
production in the developing countries. Aduku (1993) reported cost of feed to account for
about 70% of the total cost of animal production. This therefore necessitates the need and
interest in exploring neglected or underutilized feedstuff materials, such as groundnut
shells which are left after the groundnut was processed and are very much available in the
north western zone of the country. Several researches (Abdul Hamid, 2013; Adamu, 2015)
were conducted in this area, however, not much has been done in evaluating nutritive
potentials of groundnut shell in the diet of sheep in attempt to reduce the cost of sheep
production.
Groundnut shell is the residue of crop specie called Arachis hypogaea, a specie in the
legume or „bean‟ family (Fabaceae). The crop is known with many other names such as
groundnut, peanut, monkey nut, earthnut, goober nut and pygmy nut. Groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L.) is among the important crops grown in Sub-Saharan Africa (Nigam et al.,
1991). Grown either as sole crop or mixed with other crops. It provides both high quality
nuts for human consumption as well as high quality fodder for livestock. An important oil
seed crop in Nigeria, grown widely in the Tropics and Sub-tropics (Ehlers and Hall, 1997).
Desire et al. (2010) reported groundnut to have ability to grow even in sandy soils and is
legume of high nutritive value as well as being a source of edible oil. The fruit is a pod
with one to five seeds that develops underground within a needle-like structure called a
3
peg. The seeds are rich in oil, 38-50 protein, calcium, potassium, phosphorous, magnesium
and vitamins (Adamu, 2015)
Jumia (2012) reported groundnut shell to have dry matter content to about 90.3% of which
4.8-7.2 is crude protein, 1.0-1.1% is crude fat and 65.7-79.3% is cellulose and lignin.
Carbohydrate is 10.6-21.2%, crude ash is 1.9-4.6%, calcium is 0.24%, and phosphorus is
0.08-0.09%. The dry matter per kilogram contains digestible energy of 4.605-5.108 KJ for
cow, 4.438-4.898 KJ for sheep, including digestible protein as 15-17grams/Kg. The shell
also contains vitamins and part of the amino acids after microbial process.
Groundnut shells were reported to contain 65.7% cellulose, 21.2% carbohydrates, 7.3%
protein, 4.5% minerals and 1.2% lipids, since the processed shells from shelling machines
contain bits and skins of nuts, the actual protein and lipid contents of this waste material
are probably much higher (Abdur-Razak et al., 2014).
1.1 Justification of the Study
Utilization of crop residues as animal feed ingredients is attracting intense research focus
and interest to many researchers (Abdul Hamid, 2013; Adamu, 2015), as conventional
feedstuff remained unaffordable to low income farmers because of the cost (Bello, 2008).
The problem of feed cost raised the need to search for alternative feed sources that can
economically supplement the conventional feed ingredients used in ration formulation
without adverse effects on the health and performance of the animals. Groundnut shell is
an agro-industrial by-product found in large quantities in areas where groundnut is
4
produced and processed. Sub-Saharan region is one of the zones of groundnut production
and processing, after the processing the shell is left in large quantity.
Information on the utilization of groundnut shell as ingredient for feeding ruminants such
as sheep is very scarce. Most of the earlier researches conducted were on groundnut
haulms (Malau-Aduli et al., 2003 and Arslan, 2005). The residue is left in the processing
area after the seed had had being removed, constituting environmental problem. It
sometimes results to environmental hazard as it blocks drainage in over flooding. It takes
longer period for the shell to decompose; farmers therefore do not appreciate it as compost
manure. While burning it may lead to air pollution, increasing atmospheric temperature
that adds to the global warming. Jumia (2012) suggested microbial fermentation, if
groundnut shell is to be incorporated into feed. In fermentation the shell be crushed first
and stewed, at 600C or so, add 1% of dry yeast powder and decomposing bacteria to
fermentation pool. Utilization of groundnut shell in the diet of ruminant animals will not
only reduce cost of production but also helps in reducing its negative environmental
impact.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The general objective of the study was to:
Investigate the effect of urea and lime treated groundnut shell in complete diet fed to
growing and fattening Yankasa rams.
The specific objectives were to determine:
5
1. Nutrients digestibility and retention of growing and fattening Yankasa rams fed
complete diet containing urea and lime treated groundnut shell.
2. Performance of growing and fattenineg Yankasa rams fed complete diet containing urea
and lime treated groundnut shell.
3. Rumen characteristics of the fattening Yankasa rams fed complete diet containing urea
and lime treated groundnut shell.
4. Carcass characteristics of fattening Yankasa rams fed complete diet containing urea and
lime treated groundnut shell.
5. Determine cost benefit of using complete diet containing urea and lime treated
groundnut shell of growing and fattening Yankasa rams
1.3 Hypotheses:
Ho: Urea and lime treated groundnut shell in a complete diet has no effect on growing and
fattening Yankasa rams.
Ha: Urea and lime treated groundnut shell in a complete diet has effect on the growth and
fattening performance of Yankasa rams.
Ho: Urea and lime treated groundnut shell in a complete diet has no effect on digestibility
and carcass characteristics of fattening Yankasa rams.
Ha: Urea and lime treated groundnut shell in a complete diet has effect on digestibility and
carcass characteristics of fattening Yankasa rams.
IF YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR TOPIC, CLICK HERE TO HIRE A WRITER»
