Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 44 issue 2 (june 2010) : 87 - 93

EVALUATION OF ENZYME AND PROBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTATION OF MAIZE PROCESSING WASTE-BASED DIETS ON PERFORMANCE AND NUTRIENT UTILIZATION OF WEANER RABBITS

P. N. Onu, S.A. Oboke
1Department of Animal Science, Ebonyi State University, P.M.B. 053 Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria.

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Onu N. P., Oboke S.A. (2024). EVALUATION OF ENZYME AND PROBIOTIC SUPPLEMENTATION OF MAIZE PROCESSING WASTE-BASED DIETS ON PERFORMANCE AND NUTRIENT UTILIZATION OF WEANER RABBITS. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 44(2): 87 - 93. doi: .

ABSTRACT

48 six weeks old crossbred weaner rabbits were randomly allocated to four treatments
to determine the effect of enzyme and probiotic supplementation of maize processing wastebased
diets on performance and nutrient digestibility of weaner rabbits. Four experimental diets
were formulated such that diet 1 (T1) contained 0% MPW while diet 2 (T2) contained 50% MPW
without supplementation. Diets 3 (T3) and 4 (T4) contained 50% MPW supplemented with 200mg
of enzyme (grindazym) and probiotic (yeast) per kilogram of feed respectively. Results showed
significant (P 0.05) differeces in body weight gain (BWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), protein
efficiency ratio (PER), crude protein, dry matter, crude fibre and ether extract digestibility among
the rabbits. Rabbits fed enzyme (T3) and probiotic (T4) supplemented diets had significantly (P <
0.05) superior BWG, FCR and PER. compared to other treatment groups. Rabbits fed 50% MPW
diet without supplementation (T2) recorded higher BWG and better FCR than those fed 0%
MPW diet (T1) There was no significant (P > 0.05) difference among the groups in daily feed
intake (DFI), daily protein intake (DPI) and ash digestibility. Economic analysis favoured the
inclusion of MPW, enzyme and probiotic in weaned rabbits diets. However, cost saving in
percentage was higher for the supplemented diets. Results of this study suggest that up to 50%
maize in rabbit diet could be replace with MPW and that enzyme and probiotic supplementation
of MPW-based diet enhanced the performance of the rabbits.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdo-Zeinab, M.A. et al. (2004). Egyptian Poult. Sci. 22: 91-113.
  2. Acamovic, T. (2001). World’s Poult. Sci. J. 57:225-242
  3. Ahmad, I. (2004). M. Phil. Thesis. Centre of Biotechnology. University of Peshawar.
  4. Anyaehie, A.A. and Madubuike, F.N.. (2004). In: Proc.9th Ann. Conf. Anim. Sci. Assoc.. Nigeria. 13-16
  5. Sept. 2004.Abakaliki, Nigeria. 90-93p.
  6. AOAC, (1995). Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Edn., Assoc. of Anal. Chem. Washington D.C.
  7. Ayasan, T. et al. (2006). Int. J. of Poult. Sci. 5: 776-779.
  8. Balevi, T. et al. (2001). Brit. Poult. Sci. 42: 456-461.
  9. Balogun, et al. (2001). Nig. J. Anim. Prod. 28: 45-51.
  10. Bedford, M.R. (2000). Anim. feed Sci.Techno. 86:1-13
  11. Bhat, M.K. (2000). Biotechnol. Adv. 18: 355-383.
  12. Blecha, F. (2000). In: Neuroendocrime Responses to Stress. (Moberg, G.P and Mench, J. A. eds.) CABI,
  13. New York.
  14. Carabano R and Piquer, J. (1998). In: The Nutrition of the Rabbit. (de Blas, C and J. Wiseman, J. eds),
  15. CABI. New York
  16. Champe, V. A and Maurice, D. V. (1983). J. Anim. Sci. 56: 1105-1114.
  17. Chesson, A., (1993) Feed enzymes. Animal feed science and Technology, 45: 63-79.
  18. Choct, M. (2004). XXII World’s Poult. Cong., Istanbul, Turkey, 32-41p.
  19. Colin, M.C. et al. (1976). Reclin. Med. Vet. 152 : 457-465.
  20. de Blas, J.C. et al.(1986). J. Anim. Sci. 63:1897-1904.
  21. El-Mandy, M.R. et al. (2002). Proc. 3rd Conf. rabbit production in hot climates, Hurghada. 495-505p.
  22. El-Nagmy, K.Y. et al. M (2004). Egyptian Poult. Sci. 24: 101-121.
  23. Esonu, B. O. et al. (2005). Int. J. Poult. Sci. 4: 213-216.
  24. Fernadez, C. et al. (1996). Proc. 6th Cong. World Rabbit Sci. Assoc., Toulouse, Vol.1 Assoc. Francaise de
  25. cunicutine lempdes. 163-166p.
  26. Fioramonti, J. et al. (2003). Res. Clin. Gastroenterology. 17: 711-724.
  27. reduces with the inclusion of non-conventional
  28. feedstuff in monogastric animal diets.
  29. CONCLUSION
  30. The results of the study have shown that
  31. 50% maize in rabbit diet can be replaced with
  32. maize processing waste without reducing the
  33. performance of the animals. Its inclusion in rabbit
  34. feed would help to reduce the cost of feed and
  35. consequently the cost of production. The results
  36. also indicated that enzyme or probiotics
  37. supplementation of maize processing waste-based
  38. diet enhanced the performance of the animals.
  39. It is therefore suggested that-the practical
  40. abundance of maize processing waste in Nigeria
  41. and the beneficial effect of enzyme or probiotic
  42. supplementation should be exploited as a
  43. significant leap to reduce the high demand on
  44. maize, its accompanying high cost and its direct
  45. effect on the cost of rabbit production.
  46. Vol. 44, No. 2, 2010 93
  47. Ghazalah, A. A. et al. (2005). Egyptian Poult. Sci. 25: 295-316.
  48. Laplace, J. P. and Lebas, F. (1977). Anim. Zootech. 26: 413-420.
  49. Lan, P.T. et al. (2003). J. Gen. Appl. Microb. 49: 29-36.
  50. Maertens, L. and De Groote, G. (1992). J. Appl. Rabbit Res. 15: 1079-1086.
  51. Obi I.U. (2002). Statistical Methods of Detecting Differences between Treatment Means and Research
  52. Methodology Issues in Laboratory and Field Experiments. Ap. Express Publishing Company Ltd.
  53. Nsukka, Nigeria.
  54. Odoh, O.E. and Ezekwe, A.G. (2005). Proc. 30th Ann. Conf. Soc. Anim. Prod., Nigeria. 20 -24th March
  55. 2005. 146-148p.
  56. Officer, D.I. (2000). In: Farm Animal Metabolism and Nutrition. (D’Mello ed). CABI New York, 405-426.
  57. Okah, U. (2004). Proc. 9th Ann. Conf. Anim. Sci. Assoc. Nigeria. 13-16th Sept. 2004. 2 – 3p
  58. Onu, P.N. et al. (2001). J. Sci. Agric. Food Technol. Environ. 1:9-24.
  59. Onu, P.N. (2006). J. Sci. Engr. Technol. 13: 6664-6674.
  60. Onu, P.N. et al. (2006). Int. J. Poult. Sci. 5: 607-610.
  61. Pauzenga, U. (1985). J. Zootech. Int. 22-28.
  62. Remois, G. et al. (1996). Proc. 6th World Rabbit Cong., Toulouse. Assoc. Francaise de Cunicultine, Lempdes,
  63. 289-292p.
  64. Steenfeldt, S. et al. (2003). Anim. feed Sci. Technol. 110: 185 – 200
  65. Soderhohm, J. D and Perdue, M. H. (2001). J. Anim. Feed Sci. 10: 51-67.
  66. Taiwo, A. A. et al. (2005). Nig. J. Anim. Prod. 32 (1): 74 - 78
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)