Biochemical, Physical And Performance Evaluations Of Commercial Broiler Rations Produced In Nigeria.

Abstract

Biochemical, physical and performance evaluation studies were carried out in order to determine the quality of four commercial broilers rations (Guinea feed, GF; Sanders feed, SF; Top feed, TF and Vital feed, VF) manufactured in Nigeria. Percentage moisture content (%MC), ash content (%AC), ether extract (%EE), crude fiber (%CF), crude protein (%CP), nitrogen free extract (%NFE) and calculated metabolizable energy (ME) in MJ/Kg were determined and compared with the nutrient values declared on the brand labels. Performance was investigated using 140, 4 weeks old finisher broilers in a 28 days (4 weeks) experiment. The 4 commercial rations and a control (CT) were fed to 5 replicated groups of the experimental birds each in a completely randomized design (CRD) experiment. There was no significant difference between the analyzed and brand label declared values of CP (P>0.05). However, there were significant (P<0.05) differences between the analyzed and declared values of % CF in GF, TF, VF in broiler starters and TF and VF in broiler finishers. Percentage AC of GF and TF were significantly (P<0.05) higher than that of SF and VF in broiler starter. Similarly, significantly (P<0.05) higher %AC was recorded for GF in Broiler starter. Moisture contents of TF in broiler starter (16.8%) and GF in broiler finisher (19.0%) were very high. GF and TF had significantly higher declared ME (11.0MJ/kg and 12.0MJ/kg respectively) than calculated ME in broiler starter. The overall mean weights of feedbags ranged from 24.82± 0.24 for GF to 24.98±0.015kg for TF, and were statistically similar to the declared 25kg/bag of feed. Feed intake, growth rate and feed conversion ratio values were similar (P>0.05) in finisher broilers fed (CF), GF, TF and VF, These were however superior to those fed SF. GF was the most economical in terms of cost of feed/Kg weight gain.

Keywords: Commercial broiler rations

Journal of Agriculture and Social Research Vol. 7 (1) 2007: pp. 1-10