Explore
Communities in English
Advertise on Engormix

Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets

Published: April 9, 2021
By: Oladimeji, S. O. 1,3; Ogunwole, O. A. 1; Amole, T. A. 2 and O. O. Tewe 1. / 1 Agricultural Biochemistry and Nutrition Unit, Department of Animal Science, University of Ibadan; 2 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Idi-Ose, Ibadan, Nigeria; 3 Animal Nutrition Department, Amo Byng Nigeria Limited, Awe, Oyo, Oyo State.
Summary

The effect of feeding four cassava peel products-based diets on carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens were investigated with 455, 10-day old Ross 308 broiler chickens randomly divided into thirteen groups of 35 birds each. Each group was replicated five times and a replicate comprised seven chicks. The design was 1+ (4 x 3) augmented factorial arrangement in a completely randomized design. The experimental diets were sundried cassava peel meal (SCPM), coarse cassava peel mash (CCPM), whole cassava peel mash (WCPM) and fine cassava peel mash (FCPM) each at three dietary inclusion levels to replace maize at 20, 40 and 60%, while the control diet was a maize-based diet. The diets were fed ad libitum to the respective grower (10-24 days) and finisher (25-46 days) experimental chickens. Results showed no significant effect (p>0.05) of feeding chickens with cassava peel-based diets on carcass primal cuts and internal offals except breast meat and spleen. Breast meat yield (24.90%) of chicks on maize-based diet was significantly higher (p<0.05) than others. Effect of interaction of cassava peel products and inclusion levels on eviscerated weight and breast weight was significant (p<0.05). The eviscerated weight (80.86%) and breast meat yield (24.90%) of chickens on control were higher (p<0.05). In conclusion, replacement of up to 60% dietary maize with cassava peel products had similar effect on broiler carcass yield and productivity but breast yield. Also, further processing of WCPM to FCPM and CCPM did not confer any advantage on chick productivity.

 
Keywords: Cassava peel, Internal offal, External offal, High-Quality Cassava Peel, Carcass yield.
Description of Problem
The demand for livestock products is increasing due to growing human population (1). Poultry products particularly broiler meat has a great potential to meet this demand due to its low feed conversion ratio (FCR) and short rearing period.
Maize remains an integral component of broiler chickens feed and its inclusion in normal diets could be as high as 60% (2). The availability of maize all year round for poultry feed has reduced and this could be attributed to competition for maize by humans and animals, irregular rainfall pattern and high cost of maize. These have resulted in search for alternatives during these periods.
An alternative feed resource that could be used is cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peels since it is relatively less competed for by humans. Cassava peels is obtained from generous peeling of cassava tuber and it accounts for 10-13 percent of the tuber weight and when dried it could be suitably used to replace maize in broiler diets (3).
Cassava peels could not be used when wet and has to be utilised in dried form for poultry. Researchers has adopted different methods of processing cassava peel for Nigerian J. Anim. Sci. 2020 Vol 22 (3): 147-157 (ISSN:1119-4308) © 2020 Animal Science Association of Nigeria (https://www.ajol.info/index.php/tjas) available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 148 monogastric diets with profound success but sun-drying is commonly adopted (3,4,5,6). Observations showed it was practically impossible to sun-dry fresh cassava peel during the wet season as it requires 2-3 days to reduce the moisture content of cassava peel to 20% or less for marketing (7). A new processing method has been suggested which is similar to garri processing but without fermentation. That could be by sun drying to constant weight in less than six hours (7). This method involves combination of different physical methods such as grating, dewatering, pulverizing and sun-drying.
Previous works on cassava peel products for broiler chicken production were limited to the performance characteristics and blood profile without any significant focus on carcass characteristics and weights of organ (3, 5, 6, 11). The goal of farmers in broiler chicken production is to achieve quality chicken with good dressing and carcass percentage (8). Information is therefore needed on the effect of the different cassava peel products- based diets on carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens which was investigated in this study.
Materials and Methods
Test Material
Fresh cassava peel from white varieties of cassava was obtained from cassava processing plant in Ajegunle, Oyo, Oyo State. The cassava peel was then transported to International Livestock Research Institute for processing into various products. The cassava peels were sorted for stomp or foreign materials. Portion of the sorted cassava peel was sundried for 3-5 days, milled and labelled sundried cassava peel meal (SCPM). Other products namely whole cassava peel mash (WCPM), fine cassava peel mash (FCPM) and coarse cassava peel mash (CCPM) were obtained using the earlier documented processing methods (7). Briefly, the fresh cassava peel was processed using the similar processing method employed in garri processing factory, the fresh cassava peels were grated and dewatered using a hydraulic press. The caked obtained was pulverized and sieved into fine and coarse fraction using a sieve screen of 2.5mm while whole fraction was the unsieved pulverized cake. The fine, coarse and whole fraction were sundried to obtain fine cassava peel mash (FCPM), coarse cassava peel mash (CCPM) and whole cassava peel mash (WCPM)
Experimental Animal and Dietary Layout
A total 455, 10-day old Ross 308 chicks were randomly allocated to 13 treatment groups of 35 birds. Each group was replicated five times and comprised seven chicks.
The experiment was a 1+ (4 x 3) augmented factorial arrangement in a completely randomized design. There were four cassava peel products sundried cassava peel meal (SCPM), coarse cassava peel mash (CCPM), whole cassava peel mash (WCPM) and fine cassava peel mash (FCPM) and three levels of % replacement of maize (20, 40 and 60%) augmented with a maize-based diet (control). The experimental diets were formulated and fed to the grower (10- 24 days) and finishers (24-46 days) chickens ad libitum. Details of the experimental grower and the finisher diets for chickens are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Carcass analysis
At day 46 of feeding, two chicks of the group average weights were selected per replicate and were properly tagged. All the selected chicks were deprived of feed overnight. The tagged chicks were sacrificed, bled, defeathered and properly dissected into parts and their weights recorded. The different cut parts were related to the percentage of the chick live weight.
Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets - Image 1
Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets - Image 2
Statistical analysis
The design is completely randomized design. Data were subjected to analysis of variance using the procedure of SAS (2002) and means were separated by least significant difference test of the same software at α0.05. Regression analyses between breast meat yield and inclusion levels of cassava peels products was also done at α0.05.
Results and Discussion
The main effects of cassava peel products and inclusion levels on primal cuts of broiler chickens are shown in Table 3 The eviscerated weight, carcass weight, shank, head, neck, intestinal weight, thigh, drum stick, back and wings were not significantly affected (p>0.05) by either cassava peel types or the inclusion levels. The breast meat, though significantly (p<0.05) influenced by cassava peel products, was not influenced (p>0.05) by the inclusion levels. Chicks on maize based diet (control) had higher breast meat (24.90%) compared those on diets based on cassava peel products (22.79-23.06%). Drumstick, thigh and wings ranged from 10.04-10.80%, 10.98-11.87% and 8.10-8.48%, respectively were similar to values obtained by (2), they noted that drumstick, thigh and wings of broiler chickens fed cassava based diets were similar to maize based diet.
The main effect of dietary cassava peels products on breast meat yield showed that meat from chicks on control (maize based diet) was significantly higher (p<0.05) than those on dietary cassava peel products. The sieving stage in the processing of FCPM and CCPM from the un-pulverised whole cassava peels cake do not conferred any advantage in chicks breast muscle observed (p>0.05). Particle size of cassava peels products could be responsible for lower breast meat yield when compared to control, as noted (18). Methionine is considered as a limiting amino acid in cassava based diets and is required for the detoxification of cyanide known to be present in cassava based diet (9). Positive correlations have been indicated between breast muscle and higher dietary methionine in broiler chickens (10). The lower breast muscle obtained in chicks on cassava peel based diets could be attributed to relatively lower available methionine in the diets required for the generation of breast muscle as part of the dietary methionine would have been deployed for detoxification.
The effects of interaction of dietary cassava peel products and inclusion levels on the primal cuts of broiler chickens are shown in Table 4. Eviscerated, breast and wings relative weights were significantly influenced (p<0.05) with no consistent pattern while others were not significantly affected (p>0.05) by the dietary maize replacement with cassava peel products. Chicks on control diet had the highest eviscerated yield (80.86%) while the least yield was recorded by chicks on 20% SCPM (73.33%). Breast yield was highest in chicks on Control diets (24.90%) while the lowest was in those on 20% FCPM (21.77). Wing yield was highest in chicks on 60% SCPM (8.89%) while the lowest were in those on 60% FCPM (7.55%). The breast yield range of 21.77 – 24.90% in this study conforms to 23.04-24.73% earlier reported for broiler chickens fed beta carotene bio-fortified cassava grit based diets (2). However, the observed wing yield contradicted the report of other authors (11) who observed similarity in the wing yield of broiler chickens when fed cassava based diets. Observed deviation could however be due to lower dietary inclusion of cassava products by the authors (11) compared to the levels used in the present study.
The replacement levels of cassava peel products were related to the broiler breast yield and the result is presented in Figure 1. The relationships for all the cassava peel products were quadratic and significant (p<0.05). The effects are represented by the regression.
equations: 
Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets - Image 3
The main effects of dietary cassava peel products and inclusion levels on internal offals of broiler chickens are presented in Table 5. The full gizzard, liver, heart, kidney, intestinal fat and intestinal weights were not significantly affected (p>0.05) by cassava peel product or the inclusion levels. The spleen weight, which was influenced (p<0.05) by dietary cassava peel products had chicks on maize based diet recording higher spleen yield and least were observed for those on whole cassava peel mash. The empty gizzard was also influenced p<0.05) by inclusion levels and was higher at 20% inclusion level (2.20%) while lowest at 0% inclusion level (1.88%).
Liver and heart have been noted to play important roles in in vivo detoxification processes (12), similarities in liver yield is an indication that the cassava peels products or the inclusion levels do not pose challenge on the birds.
The main effect of dietary cassava peel products and inclusion level on heart and liver weights were not significantly different (p>0.05). This indicated that cassava peels products or the inclusion levels did not pose any toxic threat on the health of the fed chickens. Spleen condition is an index of immunity and adequacy in supply of oxygen to the tissue (13). The values obtained (0.07-0.11%) for spleen weight in this study conforms to a range of 0.061 – 0.117% body weight reported (14) for healthy broiler chicken fed yeast beta-glucan and virginiamycin. The lower gizzard weight observed in chicks on control diets (no cassava included) could be due to lower fibre in maize compared to cassava peel which will promote faster passage rate of the diets relative to cassava peel mash based diet. This agrees with the earlier submission (15) that reduced transit time results in higher gizzard weight. However, lower gizzard weight may not always suggest better broiler performance as observed (16).
The effect of interaction of cassava peel products and inclusion levels on internal offal weights of broiler chickens are shown in Table 6. All the weights of internal offals assessed were not influenced (p>0.05) except for the heart. Earlier authors (11) however, observed no significant differences (p>0.05) when broiler chickens were fed diets containing 5, 10 and 15% cassava peels. This observation may be due to lower inclusion levels of cassava peel in the diets. The variations observed were not consistent with the cassava peel products or inclusion levels used; this could be due iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous diets employed in this study. Balancing for nutrient differences helps to reduce challenges posed by nutrients imbalance. Also, the heart weights were within the range reported (17).
Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets - Image 4
Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets - Image 5
Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets - Image 6
Carcass characteristics and organ weights of broiler chickens fed varying inclusion levels of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) peel products-based diets - Image 7
Conclusions and Applications
1. The breast meat yield of chickens on maize-based (control) diets had more breast weights (yield) compared to those on cassava peel products which had lower but similar weights (yield).
2. Cassava peel products can be used up to 60% in broiler diets to replace maize without negative effect on carcass primal cuts and internal offals’ yield of broiler chicken except for breast weights (yield).
3. Further processing of WCPM to FCPM or WCPM do not confer any advantage on the carcass primal cuts and internal offals.
 
This article was originally published in Nigerian Journal of Animal Science 2020 Vol 22 (3): 147-157 (ISSN:1119-4308). This is an Open Access article distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

1. Nworgu, F. C., Egbunike, G. N. and
Ogundola, F. I. (2000). Performance and nitrogen utilization of broilers fed full fat extruded soybean meal and full fat soybean. Tropical Animal Production
Investigation. 2000; 3:47–54.
2. Ogunwole, O. A., Lawal, H. O., Idowu, A.
I., Oladimeji, S. O., Abayomi, F. D., and
Tewe, O. O. (2016). Carcass characteristics, proximate composition and residual retinol in meat of broiler chickens fed β-carotene cassava (Manihot Esculenta
Crantz) grits based diets. Journal of
Oladimeji et al
156
Animal Production Research; 28(2):102-
117. ISSN 0189-0514.
3. Oyebimpe, K., A. O. Fanimo, O. O.
Oduguwa and W. O. Biobaku (2006).
Response of broiler chickens to cassava peel and maize offal in cashew nut mealbased diets. Archivos de Zootecnia. 55 (211): 301-304.
4. Tewe, O. (1983). Thyroid cassava toxicity in animals. Pages 114-118 in Cassava toxicity and thyroid: research and public health issues. Proceedings, International
Workshop on Cassava Toxicity, edited by
F. Delange and R Ahluwalia, 31 May-2
June 1982, Ottawa, Canada. IDRC-207e:
Ottawa
5. Adeyemo, I. A. and Sani, A. (2013).
Haematological parametres and serum biochemical indices ofbroiler chickens fed
Aspergillus niger hydrolyzed cassava peel meal based diet. IJRRAS 15 (3) J u n e 2 0
1 3 www.arpapress.com/Volumes/Vol
15Issue3/IJRRAS_15_3_24.pdf
6. Abu, O. A., Olaleru, I. F., Oke, T. D.,
Adepegba,V. A. and Usman, B. (2015)
Performance of broiler chicken fed diets containing cassava peel and leaf meals as replacements for maize and soya bean meal. International Journal of Science and
Technology, 4 (4), 169-173.
7. Okike I., A. Samireddypalle, L.Kaptoge,
C. Fauquet, J. Atehnkeng,
R.Bandyopadhyay, P.Kulakow, A.
Duncan, T. Alabi, and M. Blummel. (2015). Technical innovations for smallscale producers and households to process wet cassava peels into high-quality animal feed ingredients andaflasafe™ substrate.
Food chain 5(1-2):71-90. Practical Action
Publishing, 2015, www.practicalactionpublishing.org. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/2046-
1887.2015.005, ISSN: 2046-1879 (print)
2046-1887 (online)
8. El-Waseif, M. A. and Gabal M. S. A. (2017). Carcass traits, cuts yield, raw meat quality and burger quality characteristics of different marketing ages and sex broiler chickens. Egyptian Journal of Food
Science. 45 (2017):17-28.
9. Omode, A. A., E. U. Ahiwe, Z. Y. Zhu, F.
Fru-Nji and P. A. Iji (2018). Improving cassava quality for poultry feeding through application of biotechnology. In: Cassava.
Published by Intech. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.7223
6.
10. Zhai W., Araujo L., Burgess, S. C. and
Corzo A. (2012). Protein expression in pectoral skeletal muscle of chickens as influenced by dietary methionine. Poultry
Science 91:2548–2555. doi: 10.3382/ps.2012-02213.
11. Egbunike, G. N., E.A. Agiang, A.O.
Owosibo and A.A. Fatufe (2009). Effect of protein on performance and haematology of broilers fed cassava peel-based diets.
Archivos de zootecnia. Vol. 58 (224), 655-
662.
12. Diarra S. S., Sandakabatu, Perera, D.,
Tabuaciri, P. and Mohammed U. (2014).
Growth performance, carcass measurements and organ weight of broiler chickens fed cassava copra meal-based or commercial finisher diets in Samoa. Asian
Journal of Poultry Science. 8(1):16-22.
13. John, J. L. (1994). The avian spleen: A neglected organ. The Quarterly Review of
Biology. 69(3):327
14. Rathgeber B. M., Budgell K. L., Maclsaac
J. L., Mirza M. A., and K. L Doncaster (2008). Growth performance and spleen and bursa weight of broilers fed yeast betaglucan. Canadian Journal of Animal
Science. 88:469-473.
15. Platel, K. and Srinivasan K. (2004).
Digestive stimulant action of spices: A myth or reality? Indian Journal of
Veterinary Research. 119:167-179.
16. Aguilar, C. A. L., Lima K. R., Manno, M.
C., Maia J. G. S., Fernandes Neto, D. L.,
Tavares, F. B., Roque T. J. L. R.,
Mendonca R. C. A. and Carmo, E. S. N. (2014). Rosewood (Aniba rosaeodora
Ducke) oil in broiler chickens diet. Revista
Brasileira de Saude e Producao Animal.
15(1):108-119.
17. Obun C. O. (2008). Performance,
Digestibilility and carcass and organ weights of finisher broiler chicks fed graded levels of fermented locust bean (Parkia biglobosa) seed meal. Asian
Journal of Poultry Science. 2:17-23.
18. Amerah A. M., V. Ravindran, R. G.
Lentle, and D. G. Thomas (2008).
Influence of particle size on performance, energy utilization, digestive tract development, and digesta parameters of broiler starters fed wheat- and corn-based diets. Poultry Science. 87:2320-2328. doi:10.3382/ps.2008-00149

Related topics:
Authors:
Sabur Olalere Oladimeji
OGUNWOLE, OLUGBENGA
Recommend
Comment
Share
Sina Fadipe
6 de septiembre de 2022
Great work. Thank you.
Recommend
Reply
Profile picture
Would you like to discuss another topic? Create a new post to engage with experts in the community.
Join Engormix and be part of the largest agribusiness social network in the world.