Received Date: 08 January 2019 | Accepted Date: 04 February 2019 | Published Date: 28 February 2019
Keywords: Anti-nutritional factors, boiled tannia, broiler birds, carcass characteristics, organs weight, raw tannia
Tannia cocoyam meals (CCYM) as substitutes for maize were evaluated in a six week feeding trial, in order to determine and compare effects of dietary inclusion at 100% of tannia cocoyam and the levels of antinutritional factors present. Ninety-six broiler chickens at four weeks of age were randomly allotted in groups of 12 to one of the following diets. The dietary treatments contain 0, 25, 50 and 100% CCYM of Tannia which comprised of raw sundried and boiled sundried forms. Proximate analyses of the test ingredient and that of maize was conducted. Antinutritional factor analyses of the test ingredients were also conducted. Carcass quality evaluation was also determined only on control groups and 100% (cocoyam inclusion). The results of proximate compositions indicated that tannia is higher in crude fibre, ash and nitrogen free extract. The weight of crop on raw tannia (31.70) was significantly lower (p<0.05) than that of the control diet (32.45). The live weight, dressed weight and eviscerated weight and all other cut parts for both raw and boiled CCYM were similar (p>0.05) to control. The weights of crop and intestine on 100% CCYM diets differed significantly (p<0.05) with lower values on the control (32.45 and 112.08 respectively) and higher values on boiled sundried tannia (53.74 and 132.30 respectively). Significantly higher levels (p<0.001) of anti-nutritional factors were observed on raw sundried tannia than the boiled sundried tannia. The carcass yield and organs weight were significantly higher (p<0.05) on boiled sundried tannia as compared to that of raw sundried. Thus, better feed utilization on boiled tannia diets due to higher feeding value than raw sundried cocoyam. Therefore, boiled tannia could replace maize at 100% inclusion levels without any adverse effects on carcass characteristics, but lower levels of raw tannia is recommended due to higher content of antinutritional factors.
|Abdulrashid, M., & Agwunobi, L. N. (2009). Taro cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta) meal as feed ingredient in poultry. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 8(5), 668-673.
|Abdulrashid, M., & Agwunobi, L. N. (2012). Tannia (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) cocoyam as dietary substitute for maize in broiler chicken. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2(5),167-171.|
|Agwunobi, L. N., Angwukam, P.O., Cora, O. O., & Isika, M. A. (2002). Studies on the use of colocasia esculenta (taro cocoyam) in the Diets of weaned pigs. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 34(3), 241-247.
|Agwunobi, L. N., Okafor, E. P., & Ohazurike, N. (2000). Tannia cocoyam tuber meal (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) as a replacement for maize grain in the diets of rabbits. Global Journal of Pure and Applied Science, 6, 419-423.|
|Ahaotu, E. O. (2018). Performance and carcass characteristics of starter broiler birds fed processed cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) corm Meal. Journal of Poultry Science and Technology, 06, (01), 05-09.|
|AOAC (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemist. Official Methods of Analysis 15th Edn. AOAC. Inc. Arlington, Virginia 22201.|
|Apata, D. F., & Babalola, T. O. (2012). The Use of Cassava, Sweet Potato and Cocoyam, and Their By- Products by Non- Ruminants. International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition Engineering, 2(4), 54-62.
|Cagas, R. E. (2017). Meat Yield and Quality of Broiler Chickens Feed with Xanthosoma sagittifolium Corm Meal. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering Technology and Science), 32(1), 181-191.|
|Caicedo, W., Vargas, J. C., Uvidia, H., Samaniego, E., Valle, S., & Flores, L. (2018). Effect of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) silage on the productive performance of commercial pigs. Technical note. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 52(2),1-5.|
|FAO (1990). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Roots, tubers, plantain and bananas in human nutrition, Food and Nutrition series, 24, FAO code: 86, AGRIS: SO1 ISBN 92-5-102862-1. Rome.|
|Mwenye, O. J. (2009). Genetic diversity analysis and nutritional assessment of cocoyam genotypes in Malawi. M.Sc project, Department of Plant Science, University of the Free, Bloemfontein, South Africa.|
|Ogbonna, J. U. (1997). Nutritive Value of Cassava Peel Meal for Poultry. A Review. Proceedings of 2nd Annual Conference of Animal Science Association of Nigeria, Lagos, September, 1997.|
|Okon, B. I., Obi, M. B., & Ayuk, A. A. (2007). Performance of quails (Cotunixcotunix japonica) fed graded levels of boiled sundried taro cocoyam Colocasia esculenta as a replacement to maize Medwell Outline Agric Journal, 2(6), 654-657.|
|Onwueme, I. C. (1982). The Tropical Tuber Crops. Utilization, Economics, and Future Prospects of Cocoyams. ELBSE dition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. p. 20.|
|Pauzenga, U. (1985). Chemistry and Nutrition. Journal. Zoo. Tech. International, 22-24.|
|Standal, B. R. (1983). Nutritive Value of Taro. In: T. T. Wang (ed.), A Review of Colocasia esculenta and its potential, (University of Hawaii press, Honolulu, Hawaii), Pp. 141-145.|