COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF GRASS, LEGUME AND THEIR MIXTURE WITH BREWERS' SPENT GRAINS FED TO WEST AFRICAN DWARF RAMS

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF GRASS, LEGUME AND THEIR MIXTURE WITH BREWERS' SPENT GRAINS FED TO WEST AFRICAN DWARF RAMS

  • The Complete Research Material is averagely 66 pages long and it is in Ms Word Format, it has 1-5 Chapters.
  • Major Attributes are Abstract, All Chapters, Figures, Appendix, References.
  • Study Level: BTech, BSc, BEng, BA, HND, ND or NCE.
  • Full Access Fee: ₦4,000

Get the complete project » Instant Download Active

ABSTRACT

Four West African Dwarf sheep were used to investigate the effect of brewers’ spent grains supplementation on the utilization of mixed forage diets. The sheep were randomly assigned three dietary treatments: treatment 1- Gliricidia sepium (G. sepium) + 200 g brewers’ spent grain (BSG), treatment 2- Panicum maximum (P. maximum) grass + 200 g BSG, and treatment 3- G. sepium (50%) + P. maximum (50%) + 200 g BSG, with four rams per treatment diet for 42 days. Data were collected on feed intake and faeces voided during a digestibility trial. The results revealed that animals fed on Treatment1 recorded the highest (p<0.05) total dry matter intake (1626.83 g), total crude fibre intake (464.56 g), total nitrogen free extract (846.35 g) and total organic matter intake (1563.69 g). Animals on treatment 2 recorded the highest (p<0.05) total crude protein intake (274.06 g) and total ether extract intake (73.19 g). Highest ash intake was recorded in treatment 3 (76.65 g). Animals fed treatment 2 recorded the highest digestibility % (P<0.05) in all nutrient parameters, while the least was observed for those fed diet treatment 3. Animals fed  treatment 2 utilized their diet efficiently and which resulted in best digestibility while the least efficiency of utilization was observed in animals on diet treatment 3. Results from this study revealed that supplementation of forages with agro-industrial by-products such as BSG enhances utilization of forages.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page         -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           i

Certification    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           ii

Dedication      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           iii

Acknowledgement      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           iv

Abstract          -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           vi

Table of Contents        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           vii

List of Tables -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           x         

CHAPTER ONE:     INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study -           -           -           -           -           -           -           1

1.2 Statement of Problem       -           -           -           -           -           -           -           2

1.3 Objectives of the Study    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           3

1.4 Justification of the Study             -           -           -           -           -           -           -           3

CHAPTER TWO:    LITERATURE REVIEW  

2.1 General Description of Sheep       -           -           -           -           -           -           4

2.2 Taxonomy of Sheep          -           -           -           -           -           -           -           5

2.3 Sheep Production Statistics          -           -           -           -           -           -           5

2.4 Characteristics/Importance of Sheep        -           -           -           -           -           7

2.4.1 Small Size          -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           7

2.4.2 Reproductive efficiency            -           -           -           -           -           -           -          8

2.4.3 Feeding behavior           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           8

2.4.4 Feed Utilization Efficiency       -           -           -           -           -           -           9

2.4.5 Fitness    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           10

2.4.6 Socio-economic -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           10

2.5 Nutrient Requirements of Sheep  -           -           -           -           -           -           11

2.6 Factors Affecting Nutrient Requirements-           -                       -           -           14

2.7  Constraints and Possible Remedies to Sheep Production-          -           -           16

2.7.1 Major constraints to ruminant production (Sheep Production) -           -           16

2.7.2 Remedies to Sheep production constraints        -           -           -           -           17

2.8  Digestibility-        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           17

2.8.1 Digestibility of mixed forages with BSG          -           -           -           -           18

2.8.2 Digestibility of grasses mixed with Gliricidia sepium   -           -           -19

2.9 Estimating Digestibility of Fibre  -           -           -           -           -           -           19

2.9.1 Factors affecting fibre digestibility -     -           -           -           -           -           20

2.10 Forages    -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           22

2.10.1 Grass forage     -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           23

2.10.1.1 Guinea grass  -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           23

2.10.1.2 Nutritional qualities of guinea grass-            -           -           -           -           24

2.10.2 Forage legumes            -           -           -           -           -           -           -           25

2.10.2.1 Gliricidia sepium       -           -           -           -           -           -           -27

2.11  Brewer' Spent Grains (BSG)      -           -           -           -           -           -           28

2.11.1 Future Perspective of Brewers Spent Grains   -           -           -           -           29

2.11.2 Chemical Composition of Brewers' Spent Grain         -           -           -           29

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Experimental site  -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           32

3.2 Experimental animals        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           32

3.3 Experimental treatments   -           -           -           -           -           -           -           32

3.4 Data collection      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           33

3.5 Experimental design         -           -           -           -           -           -           -           34

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1       Proximate Composition (% DM) of Forages and BSG          -           -           35

4.2       Proximate Composition (% DM) of Faeces    -           -           -           -           37

4.3Voluntary and Nutrient Intake of WAD sheep Fed

            P. maximum, Gliricidia and BSG-    -             -           -           -           -           38

4.4       Digestibility of WAD Rams fed P. maximum,

Gliricidia sepium and BSG  - -           -           -           -           -           -           41

4.5Nitrogen Balance of WAD  rams fed P. maximum,

Gliricidia sepium and Brewers’ Spent Grains.            -           -           -           42

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1       Conclusion      -           -           -           -           -           -           -           -           44

5.3       Recommendation        -           -           -           -           -           -           -           44

            References     

 Appendix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1             Experimental Layout  -           -           -           -           -           34

Table 2Proximate Composition (% DM) of Forages and BSG-         36

Table 3             Proximate Composition (% DM) of Faeces    -           -           38

Table 4Voluntary and Nutrient Intake of WAD Sheep

Fed P. maximum, Gliricidia and BSG            -           -           -           39

Table 5Digestibility of WAD Rams Fed P. maximum,

Gliricidia sepium and BSG     -           -           -           -            42

Table 6             Nitrogen Balance of WAD Rams fed

P. maximum, Gliricidia sepium and Brewers’

Spent Grains   -           -           -           -           -           -           43


CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1       Background of the Study

Inadequate feeding is a major limiting factor to small ruminant production in tropical Africa (Ademosun, 2010). Fodder is of poor nutritional value for most of the year due to the rainfall pattern. In the arid and semi-arid zones, rainfall is less than 600 mm and between 600-1000 mm per year, respectively. Many conventional diets for ruminants in the tropics are poor quality roughages typified by high Neutral Detergent Fibre (NDF), low nitrogen contents and slow fermentation rates. This poor dietary combination leads to decreased intake, weight loss, increased susceptibility to health risks and reduced reproductive performance. Including herbaceous legumes in these feeding regimes helps to rectify some of the problems associated with low protein and high fibre diets. Poppi and Mclennan, (1995) suggested that to optimise the benefits of lablab as a feed source, it should be grazed in conjunction with poor quality feedstuffs.

The quality of available forage is low and browse species which can provide higher levels of proteins and carbohydrates are sparsely dispersed. In the humid and sub-humid zones, up to six months of the year can be rainless, resulting in poor quality forages. The rapid buildup of cell-wall materials and decline in crude protein (CP) content with maturity reduces the nutritional value of the forages. Little is known about the nutritional value, distribution, palatability, seedling vigour and seasonal production of the forage species that characterise the natural grassland. This is particularly true of the arid, semi-arid and sub-humid areas which contain 75% of the sheep and 80% of the goats of tropical Africa and where the rangeland is the most important source of food (FAOSTAT, 2013). Besides the use of browse, other strategies can be employed to improve the feeding of animals. During the dry season, the quality of available herbage is so low that, unless the animals have access to supplementary feeds, they lose weight. These supplementary feeds can be obtained from agro-industrial by-products such as residues of oil extracted from oil bearing seeds (groundnuts, coconut, palm kernels, cotton seed, soyabean etc), by-products of grain processing (maize, rice, wheat, sorghum, millet etc), peelings of crops (yams, cassava, potatoes, plantains e


You either get what you want or your money back. T&C Apply





Share a Comment


You can find more project topics easily, just search

Quick Project Topic Search