| Livestock Research for Rural Development 33 (5) 2021 | LRRD Search | LRRD Misssion | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
A total of 180 Cobb 500 a day old broiler chicks (with average initial body weight of 56.20+0.52) were randomly distributed into 15 pens. Five different rations consisting different inclusion levels of tomato waste meal (TWM) were prepared to evaluate the growth performances and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. The inclusion levels of TWM were 0% (TW0), 3% (TW3), 6% (TW6), 9% (TW9) and 12% (TW12). The experiment was conducted for a period of 45 days, during which the daily feed intake and weekly BW change and carcass characteristics were also measured. At the end of the experiment, 4 birds 2 from each sex (average BW of 1735.12 +5.96) from each replication were selected for the measurement of carcass characteristics. The chemical composition of TWM were 92.6% dry matter (DM), 24.6% crude protein (CP),26.7% crude fiber (CF), 12.3% ether extract (EE), 6.8% ash and 1975 kcal/kg DM metabolized energy (ME). There were no significance difference (P>0.05) among the treatments on feed intake of chickens during starter phase. In finisher phase, the daily feed intake of individual chickens ranged from 138 (TW12) to 155 (TW6) g/bird/day and it was higher (P<0.01) in TW6as compared to other treatments. For the entire period, the feed intake was higher (P<0.05) for birds fed TW6 diets followed by TW9than TW0, TW3 an d TW12.The final body weight of the chickens higher in order of TW6, TW9, TW3, TW0 and TW12. The average daily BW gain of chickens for the entire experimental period was 37, 40.4, 43.10, 41.9 and 33.37 (SEM = 0.93) g/bird for TW0, TW3, TW6, TW9 and TW12, respectively and it was higher (P<0.001) for TW6 as compared to the rest of the treatment. Feed conversion ratios during the finisher and the entire experimental period were higher for TW12 and TW0 than TW3, TW6 and TW9 (P<0.001). The results of dressed weight, breast, and drumstick-thigh weights were TW6>TW9>TW3>TW0>TW12. The dressing percentage of chickens were higher in TW6 followed by TW9 than TW12, TW3 and TW0. Based on the result of this experiment as a conclusion, the inclusion of TWM up to 9% (TW9) in the diet of broiler chickens has no adverse effect on growth performance and carcass characteristics. Beside this, TWM can partially replace expensive protein source feeds of broiler chickens in broiler chickens.
Keywords: broiler chicks, growth performance, tomato waste meal
Poultry meat and egg are estimated to contribute about 20 to 30% of the total animal protein supply in low income food deficient developing countries. However, feed among others is an important challenge for efficient poultry production in such countries (FAO 2004). With the increasing human population in Ethiopia, there is an increasing demand for the supply of animal source foods. This indicates the sector to be more efficient to fulfill the growing population protein demand. On the other hand like other developing countries there is a bottle neck problem on poultry production mainly in terms of quantity and quality of feeds regardless of the production type and size in Ethiopia. Poultry feeds contribute the highest percent of the total production cost. Waller (2007) reported that poultry feeds accounted about 70% of the total production cost. Consequently, to reduce production cost, use of alternative feed source which is not directly consumed by human being, such as agricultural and aquatic by products in poultry feed is a feasible option. Among these non-conventional feed sources, inclusion of tomato waste meal in poultry diet could bean alternative option. This calls for assessment and evaluation of non-conventional feed ingredients and test and evaluate their nutritive and feeding values for the chickens.
According to Rossini et al (2013) tomato is one of the vegetable crops most widely produced in the world both for direct consumption and for production of tomato products. Worldwide, production of fresh and processed tomato has been steadily increasing with total annual production growth from 129 million tons in 2005 to 163 million tons in 2013 (FAO 2016). Tomato is a tremendous source of potassium and vitamins A, C and as well as superior sources of α-tocopherol. Tomato waste spoils quickly and its nutritive value per kilogram fresh matter is low and the bulkiness limits intake (Cotte 2000). Due to these reasons, tomato pomace skins and seeds are usually dried under shade or direct sunlight before being fed to animals (Poore 2008). Ethiopia has a large amount of tomato waste which is produced by Upper Awash and Melgi-Wondo Tomato Processing Industry, and annually more than 234,902 quintal of tomato can be processed into tomato paste and tomato juice (UAA 2009). The spoiled tomato waste emits a very foul odor and creates conducive environment for the reproduction of harmful variety of pests such as flies and mosquitoes. Thus, using tomato waste in the diet of chickens can serve as a means to reduce feed cost, dependence on conventional feed materials, environmental pollution and related hazards to human health. Previous study on feeding value of tomato waste meal in layers under Ethiopian condition showed that its inclusion in the diet up to 19.5% increased egg production, fertility and hatchability (Kemer Yimam 2016). However, there is information on the effect of its inclusion in broilers diet. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to examine the effect of feeding TWM on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens.
The experimental study was conducted at Haramaya University poultry farm located at 42º 3΄ E longitudes, 9º 26΄ N latitudes and an altitude of 1980 meters above sea level. The mean annual rainfall of the area is 780 mm and the average minimum and maximum temperature is 8ºC and 24ºC, respectively (Mishra et al 2004).
Tomato waste was obtained from Upper Awash Tomato Processing Agro-Industry, in Oromia Regional State. Tomato waste meal was prepared by spreading the fresh tomato waste on plastic sheet on the ground and dried in a direct sun light for 5 days. Then, it was dried for an additional 7 days under shade with good ventilation followed by crushing the dried tomato waste by hand and finally grinded by using chicken’s feed mill to pass through 3mm sieve size in order to use as an ingredient in formulating the experiment rations.
A total of 180 Cobb 500 day-old broiler chicks were purchased from Alema commercial poultry farm in Bishoftu. The experimental chickens were distributed in to five dietary treatments with 12 chickens per replication in a Completely Randomized Design.
The treatment rations were formulated based on the chemical composition analysis results of the feed ingredients for starter and finisher phases. Based on the ingredient proximate (DM, CP, CF EE ME and Ash) analysis results, five treatments rations were formulated nearly to be iso-caloric and iso-nitrogenous which was outlined by National research council (NRC 1994). The experimental feed formulations were prepared by using feed win interactive software based on broiler metabolic energy and crude protein requirement. The rations were comprised of the control diet (TW0) and diets containing 3, 6, 9 and 12% of TWM inclusion for TW3, TW6, TW9, and TW12 dietary treatments, respectively.
|
Table 1. Chemical composition (% in DM basis, except DM) of feed ingredients used to formulate the experimental ration |
||||||||
|
Feed Ingredients |
Chemical compositions |
|||||||
|
DM (%) |
CP |
CF |
EE |
Ash |
Ca |
P |
ME kcal/kg DM |
|
|
Maize grain |
90.75 |
9.51 |
7.53 |
4.40 |
3.20 |
0.81 |
0.63 |
3392 |
|
Soybean Meal |
93.40 |
41.30 |
9.71 |
6.25 |
8.51 |
0.92 |
0.80 |
3083 |
|
TWM |
92.61 |
24.60 |
26.70 |
12.30 |
6.80 |
0.94 |
0.79 |
1975 |
|
Wheat bran |
93.24 |
13.82 |
8.10 |
3.90 |
5.30 |
0.68 |
0.72 |
3229 |
|
Peanut meal |
91.35 |
37.50 |
12.40 |
9.74 |
9.20 |
0.95 |
0.85 |
3006 |
|
TWM = Tomato Waste Meal; DM
= Dry Matter; CP= Crude Protein; CF = Crude Fiber; EE =
Ether Extract; |
||||||||
The Starter and finisher phase ration were formulated with different crude protein (CP) and metabolizable energy (ME) levels for the starter and finisher growth phases of broilers chickens. The diets were formulated to meet the nutrient requirements of broiler chicks (NRC 1994).
|
Table 2. Proportion of ingredients used in the formulation of starter and finisher rations |
||||||||||
|
Feed |
Treatments |
|||||||||
|
Starter |
Finisher |
|||||||||
|
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
|
|
Maize |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
40 |
|
SBM |
25 |
23 |
21 |
20 |
18 |
22 |
21 |
20 |
17 |
16 |
|
PM |
19 |
19 |
19 |
18 |
17 |
18 |
17 |
16 |
16 |
15 |
|
Wheat bran |
19 |
18 |
17 |
16 |
16 |
18 |
17 |
16 |
16 |
15 |
|
TWM |
0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
|
Vitamin premix |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
|
DCP |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Salt |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
|
Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
TWM=Tomato Waste Meal; DCP= Dicalcium phosphate; PM=Peanut Meal; SBM=Soya bean Meal; TW0= 0% inclusion of TWM; TW3=3% inclusion of TWM; TW6=6% inclusion of TWM; TW9=9 % inclusion of TWM % and TW12=12% inclusion of TWM |
||||||||||
|
Table 3. Chemical compositions of starter ration containing different levels of Tomato Waste Meal (%) |
|||||||
|
Chemical |
Feed samples and Treatments |
||||||
|
Starter ration offered |
|||||||
|
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
|||
|
DM |
91.70 |
90.32 |
92.16 |
91.42 |
91.00 |
||
|
CP |
21.76 |
21.64 |
22.30 |
20.97 |
21.95 |
||
|
CF |
10.50 |
11.26 |
11.75 |
12.03 |
12.98 |
||
|
EE |
6.40 |
7.30 |
8.95 |
9.25 |
10.52 |
||
|
Ash |
5.65 |
4.79 |
6.00 |
6.14 |
6.80 |
||
|
ME (kcal/kg DM) |
3137 |
3166 |
3151 |
3136 |
3095 |
||
|
Ca |
1.03 |
1.00 |
0.97 |
1.42 |
0.77 |
||
|
P |
0.81 |
0.56 |
0.74 |
0.58 |
0.95 |
||
|
TWM = Tomato Waste Meal; Ca= Calcium; P=phosphorus; DM = Dry Matter; CF = Crude Fiber; CP = Crude Protein; EE = Ether Extract; ME kcal DM = Metabolizable Energy kilocalorie per kilogram of Dry Matter; TW0= 0% inclusion of TWM; TW3=3% inclusion of TWM; TW6=6% inclusion of TWM; TW9=9% inclusion of TWM and TW12=12% inclusion of TWM |
|||||||
|
Table 4. Chemical compositions of finisher ration containing different levels of TWM (%) |
||||||
|
Chemical |
Feed samples and Treatments |
|||||
|
Finisher ration offered |
||||||
|
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
||
|
DM |
89.68 |
90.77 |
91.00 |
90.26 |
91.35 |
|
|
CP |
21.60 |
21.13 |
21.50 |
20.79 |
21.00 |
|
|
CF |
9.56 |
10.42 |
10.99 |
11.62 |
12.08 |
|
|
EE |
6.53 |
6.90 |
8.40 |
9.05 |
9.60 |
|
|
Ash |
3.00 |
3.70 |
3.35 |
4.08 |
4.64 |
|
|
ME (kcal/kg DM) |
3335 |
3251 |
3296 |
3246 |
3212 |
|
|
Ca |
0.78 |
1.04 |
0.67 |
1.02 |
0.95 |
|
|
P |
0.65 |
0.47 |
0.50 |
0.38 |
0.67 |
|
|
TWM = Tomato Waste Meal; Ca= Calcium; P=phosphorus; DM = Dry Matter; CF = Crude Fiber; CP = Crude Protein; EE = Ether Extract; ME kcal DM = Metabolizable Energy kilocalorie per kilogram of Dry Matter; TW0= 0% inclusion of TWM; TW3=3% inclusion of TWM; TW6=6% inclusion of TWM; TW9=9% inclusion of TWM and TW12=12% inclusion of TWM |
||||||
The feed samples were analyzed for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), and ether extract (EE) and total ash (AOAC, 1990). Kjeldahl procedure of nitrogen analysis was employed to determine nitrogen (N) and the crude protein (CP) by multiplying N × 6.25. The ME content of the experimental diets was determined by indirect method according to the formula given by Wiseman (1987): ME (kcal/ kg DM) =3951+54.4 EE - 88.7 CF - 40.8 Ash. The chemical analyses were conducted at Haramaya University, department of Animal and Range Science in animal nutrition laboratory.
Before the beginning of the actual experiment, the experimental pens were cleaned and disinfected two weeks before the arrival of the chicks by using disinfectants and fumigated by using formaldehyde solution and calcium phosphate powder. Infra-red lamps, brooders, drinkers and feeders were placed in each pen before the entrance of the chicks. The pens were prepared by using a wire mesh with a space of 1.5 m x 1.5 m. Chickens were raised for 45 days in deep litter housing system in which the floor was covered using teff straw. The chicks were vaccinated against Newcastle disease virus (HB1, Lasota) and Gumboro disease virus according to manufacturer’s vaccination instructions. Multivitamins were also given for all groups.
The feed offered and refused were weighed and recorded daily. The refusal feeds were weighed after removal of the external contaminants. The amount of feed consumed was considered as the difference between feed offered and feed refused and recorded daily. The average daily feed intake was calculated as feed consumed per day by the number of chickens in that day.
The birds were weighed individually on weekly bases and mean value of the pen were taken for data analysis. Body weight change was calculated as the difference between the final and initial BW whereas the mean average daily BW gain was determined by dividing the mean BW change by the number of experimental days. The mean of feed conversion ratio (FSR) was determined as the mean daily feed intake by the mean average daily gain.
At the end of the experiment, four chicks (2 from each sex) were purposively taken for a replication. After starving for 12 hours, the chickens were weighed and slaughtered. De-feathering wet was done to remove feather from the slaughtered birds. Then dressed carcass weight was measured after the removal of non-edible offal components. Breast and drumstick-thigh meat were separated and measured. Abdominal fat was measured and collected from adipose tissue, kidney and cloaca. Gizzard (without content), heart and liver were separated and weighted. Length of Caecum and small intestine also were measured. The percentages of each carcass yield parameters were determined by dividing the weight of the specific component by the live weight and multiplying that ratio by 100 (Rose 1997).
Data were analyzed by the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software (2002) version 9.1. One way ANOVA was used for the analysis of variance with the probability values of P<0.05 to declare statistical significance. The treatment means were compared using least significant difference (LSD) method to locate the treatment means that were significantly different from each other (Gomez 1984).The model used for the experiment was
ϒij= µ + ti+ɛij
Where;
ϒij = The response variable,
µ= over all mean
ti= Treatment effect
ɛij= random error
The chemical analysis results of feed ingredients used in the experiment are shown in Table 3. The highest protein contents were observed in soybean meal (41.3%) and peanut meal (37.5%). Maize grain (3392kcal/kg DM) and wheat bran (3229 kcal/kg DM) contained relatively high amount of ME.
|
Table 5. Feed intake of broiler chicks fed diets containing different levels of tomato waste meal |
|||||||
|
Parameters |
Treatments |
p value |
|||||
|
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
|||
|
Starter phase |
|||||||
|
TFI (g/bird) |
865.8±7.5 |
887.3±11.7 |
916.9±10.4 |
910.6±6.9 |
858.2±8.4 |
0.5493 |
|
|
DFI(g/bird/day) |
41.2±0.9 |
42.2±1.2 |
43.7±1.0 |
43.4±0.6 |
40.9±0.9 |
0.5493 |
|
|
Finisher phase |
|||||||
|
TFI (g/bird) |
3445.6±16.9bc |
3500.8±20.2b |
3723.4±25.6a |
3521.9±12.7b |
3311.0±14.4c |
0.0037 |
|
|
DFI(g/bird/day) |
143.6±2.6bc |
145.9±1.0b |
155.2±3.4a |
146.7±1.3 b |
138.0±0.6c |
0.0037 |
|
|
Entire phase |
|||||||
|
TFI (g/bird) |
4311.5±32.7bc |
4388.1±25.8bc |
4640.3±43.0a |
4432.5±29.6ab |
4170.1±21.8c |
0.0150 |
|
|
DFI(g/bird/day) |
95.8±1.9bc |
97.5±1.2bc |
103.1±2.5a |
98.5±1.3ab |
92.7 ±0.8c |
0.0150 |
|
|
abcMeans within a row with the different superscript letters are significantly different:(*P<0.05) and (**P<0.01) ; TWM = Tomato Waste Meal; TFI= Total Feed Intake ; DFI=Daily Feed Intake, g=gram: TW0= 0% inclusion of TWM; TW3=3% inclusion of TWM; TW6=6% inclusion of TWM; TW9=9% inclusion of TWM; TW12=12% inclusion of TWM;NS=Non-Significant; SEM=standard Error of Mean and SL=significance Level |
|||||||
The ADG of broilers chickens significantly differ (P<0.001) among the treatments during the starter, finisher and entire growth period Table 6. Broilers consumed the control diet (TW0) and 3% TWM (TW3) did not significantly differ from each other in final body weight and average daily body weight gain during the starter phase. In finisher and entire growth period broilers fed with the ration containing 6% TWM (TW6) followed by 9% TWM (TW9) had greater body weight and average daily weight gain than TW0, TW3 and TW12.
|
Table 6. Final body weight, average daily gain and feed conversion ratio of broiler chickens fed diets containing different levels of tomato waste meal |
|||||||
|
Parameters |
Treatments |
p value |
|||||
|
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
|||
|
Starter phase |
|||||||
|
Initial BW (g/bird) |
55.8±0.51 |
56.4±0.54 |
55.8±0.52 |
56.5±0.52 |
56.5±0.52 |
0.7395 |
|
|
Final BW (g/bird) |
742.4±0.41c |
743.2 ±0.52c |
771.0±0.37a |
753.1±0.23b |
736.8±0.52d |
0.0001 |
|
|
ADG(g/bird/day) |
32.70±0.03c |
32.70±0.01c |
34.07±0.01a |
33.17±0.03b |
32.39±0.01d |
0.0010 |
|
|
DFI(g/bird/day)) |
41.2±0.9 |
42.2±1.2 |
43.7±1.0 |
43.4±0.6 |
40.9±0.9 |
0.5493 |
|
|
FCR(g feed/ g gain) |
1.3±0.05 |
1.3±0.04 |
1.0±0.04 |
1.2±0.04 |
1.5±0.03 |
0.8664 |
|
|
Finisher phase |
|||||||
|
Initial BW (g/bird) |
742.4±0.41c |
743.2±0.52c |
771.0±0.37a |
753.1±0.23b |
736.8±0.52d |
0.0001 |
|
|
Final BW (g/bird) |
1759.4±0.40d |
1875.3±0.63c |
1995.6±0.70a |
1944.5±0.62b |
1553.9±0.54e |
0.0001 |
|
|
ADG(g/bird/day) |
42.4±0.03d |
47.2±0.05c |
51.0±0.02a |
49.6±0.03b |
34.1±0.01e |
0.0001 |
|
|
DFI (g/bird/day) |
143.6±2.6bc |
145.9±1.0b |
155.2±3.4a |
146.7±1.3 b |
138.0±0.6c |
0.0027 |
|
|
FCR (g feed/ g gain) |
3.4±0.06b |
3.1±0.02c |
2.9±0.03c |
3.0±0.07c |
4.0±0.02a |
0.0001 |
|
|
Entire phase |
|||||||
|
Final BW(g/bird) |
1759.4±0.40d |
1875.3±0.63c |
1995.6±0.70a |
1944.5±0.62b |
1553.9±0.54e |
0.0001 |
|
|
ADG(g/bird/day) |
37.8±0.01d |
40.4±0.03c |
43.1±0.01a |
41.9±0.01b |
33.2±0.01e |
0.0001 |
|
|
DFI (g/bird/day) |
95.8±1.9bc |
97.5±1.2bc |
103.1±2.5a |
98.5±1.3ab |
92.7 ±0.8c |
0.0150 |
|
|
FCR (g feed/ g gain) |
2.5±0.05b |
2.4±0.03bc |
2.3±0.03c |
2.3±0.06c |
2.8±0.01a |
0.0001 |
|
|
abc Means within a row with the different superscript letters are significantly different:(***P<0.001); TWM = Tomato Waste Meal; BW=Body Weight; ADG=Average Daily Gain; DFI= Daily Feed Intake, g=gram; FCR=Feed Conversion Ratio; NS=Not Significance; SL=Significance level; TW0= 0% inclusion of TWM; TW3=3% inclusion of TWM; TW6=6% inclusion of TWM; TW9=9% inclusion of TWM and TW12=12% inclusion of TWM |
|||||||
The slaughter, dressed, breast, drumstick-thigh weight, and percentage of broiler chickens are shown in Table 7. There were significant (P<0.01) differences in carcass parameters (slaughter, dressed, breast, and drumstick-thigh weight) between broilers fed diet containing different levels of TWM and the control group. The highest slaughter and dressed carcass weight values were recorded for 6% TWM inclusion (TW6) than TW0, TW3 and TW12, but similar with TW9. The 9% TWM inclusion (TW9) also has higher slaughter and dressed weight than TW0, TW3 and TW12. This difference is an attribute of high final body weight and average daily body weight gain recorded by TW6 and TW9. Thus, the current study revealed that the groups fed 6 and 9% inclusion levels of TWM in the broiler diet were more efficient than the group fed on the other diets in converting the feed to meat and in partially substituting the high cost protein ingredients in commercial broilers ration.
|
Table 7. Carcass characteristics of broiler chicks fed diets containing different levels of tomato waste meal |
|||||||
|
Carcass Parameters |
Treatments |
p- values |
|||||
|
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
|||
|
Slaughter weight (g) |
1604.4±8.5c |
1673.6±5.9bc |
1989.8±3.2a |
1858.9±9.5ab |
1548.9±2.7c |
0.0059 |
|
|
Dressed weight (g) |
1050.2±6.4c |
1114.7±5.5bc |
1434.3±3.8a |
1289.0±6.0ab |
1044.6±2.6c |
0.0033 |
|
|
Dressing percentage |
65.4±0.3 |
66.7±1.5 |
72.0±0.9 |
69.3±0.7 |
67.4±1.2 |
0.3828 |
|
|
Breast weight (g) |
330.6±0.8c |
416.7±2.3bc |
519.6±1.7a |
484.1±3.0ab |
359.6±4.9c |
0.0050 |
|
|
Breast percentage |
21.3±0.3c |
24.8±0.7bc |
26.3±0.8a |
26.0±0.7ab |
22.2±1.8c |
0.0213 |
|
|
Drumstick- thigh wt. |
272.2±3.0c |
318.2±4.6bc |
377.3±2.6a |
352.6±4.4ab |
294.6±3.9c |
0.0079 |
|
|
Drumstick –thigh (%) |
17.5±0.4 |
18.5±0.6 |
19.1±0.3 |
18.9±0.4 |
18.4±0.3 |
0.2716 |
|
|
Abdominal fat weight (g) |
30.5±1.0a |
25.8±0.7b |
23.4±0.5b |
18.7±0.9c |
16.1±0.8d |
0.0001 |
|
|
Abdominal fat (%) |
1.9±0.05a |
1.5±0.07b |
1.2±0.04c |
1.0±0.01c |
1.0±0.06c |
0.0001 |
|
|
abcMeans within a row with different superscript letters are significantly different (*P<0.05;**P<0.01 and ***P<0.001); TWM = Tomato Waste Meal; NS= Non Significant; SEM=standard Error of Mean; g=gram; SL=significance Level; TW0= 0% inclusion of TWM; TW3=3% inclusion of TWM; TW6=6% inclusion of TWM; TW9=9% inclusion of TWM and TW12=12% inclusion of TWM |
|||||||
The weight and percentage of total giblet as well as the length of organs are shown in Table 8.
Concerning total giblet (gizzard, liver and heart) weight and percentage there were no significant (P>0.05) difference between treatments. Furthermore, there were no significance (P>0.05) difference in relation to weight and percentage of gizzard and liver among treatments. The heart weight of groups consumed TW6 and TW9 rations were higher (P<0.05) than the other groups. Chicks consumed TW0, TW3 and TW12 were not different from each other in heart weight.
|
Table 8. Giblet weight, organs weight and length of broiler chicks fed diets containing different levels of tomato waste meal |
|||||||
|
Parameters |
Treatments |
p- value |
|||||
|
TW0 |
TW3 |
TW6 |
TW9 |
TW12 |
|||
|
Slaughter weight |
1604.4±8.5c |
1673.6±5.9bc |
1989.8±3.2a |
1858.9±9.5ab |
1548.9±2.7c |
0.0059 |
|
|
Total giblet (g) |
86.1±0.9 |
89.3±2.5 |
100.4±2.0 |
107.7±1.3 |
92.0±1.6 |
0.3391 |
|
|
Giblet percentage |
5.9±0.7 |
6.3±0.4 |
6.2±0.4 |
7.0±0.3 |
6.2±0.3 |
0.5045 |
|
|
Gizzard weight (g) |
36.8±2.0 |
36.7±3.3 |
39.3±1.8 |
48.8±1.0 |
40.8±1.5 |
0.1200 |
|
|
Gizzard percentage |
2.9±0.5 |
3.1±0.5 |
3.1±0.3 |
3.9±0.3 |
2.8±0.4 |
0.4939 |
|
|
Heart weight (g) |
8.6±0.5b |
9.4±0.5b |
11.3±0.5a |
9.8±0.6ab |
8.4±0.5b |
0.0292 |
|
|
Heart percentage |
0.5±0.05 |
0.6±0.03 |
0.6±0.02 |
0.5±0.01 |
0.5±0.03 |
0.8710 |
|
|
Liver weight (g) |
40.7±2.7 |
42.9±2.8 |
49.8±3.2 |
49.1±0.9 |
42.8±1.7 |
0.0684 |
|
|
Liver percentage |
2.5±0.2 |
2.5±0.2 |
2.5±0.1 |
2.6±0.1 |
2.8±0.1 |
0.7356 |
|
|
Length of SI (cm) |
186.2±2.0 |
186.7±1.2 |
199.5±2.2 |
193.4±2.0 |
188.2±2.5 |
0.6959 |
|
|
Length ceaca (cm) |
17.8±1.0c |
19.8±0.8bc |
20.5±0.7bc |
23.3±0.8b |
25.8±0.8a |
0.0006 |
|
|
a,b,cMeans within a row with the different superscript letters are significantly different (*P<0.05; ** P<0.01 and *** P<0.001) ;TWM = Tomato Waste Meal; cm=centimeter, NS= Non-Significant; g=gram; SEM=standard Error of Mean; SL=significance Level; SI=Small Intestine; TW0= 0% inclusion of TWM; TW3=3% inclusion of TWM; TW6=6% inclusion of TWM; TW9=9% inclusion of TWM and TW12=12% inclusion of TWM |
|||||||
The CP content of TWM in the current experiment was higher than 24.1% and 21.0% of CP reported by Aghajanzadeh-Golshani et al (2010) and Feedipedia (2016), respectively. Weiss et al (1997) also reported that the CP level of tomato pomace fall within the range of 18.1–30.52% on DM basis. Dry matter content of TWM was almost similar to that reported by earlier studies (Jafari et al 2006 and Pathakamuri et al 2013), but lower than result reported by Habanabashaka et al (2014). The ME content (1975kcal/kg DM) of TWM in the current study is higher than the value reported by Rezaeipour et al (2012), which was 1747 kcal/kg DM. The ash content was higher than the value (5.65%) report by Persia et al (2003). Ether extract content in the current study is higher than the value (8.1%) reported by Safamerh et al (2011). The crude fiber (CF) level of TWM in the present study was lower than the value (29.75%) reported by Safamerh et al (2010). The variation in chemical composition of TWM might be mainly due to variety, harvesting time and environmental factors. The CP and ME content of TWM in the current study shows that it serve as a good source of protein and energy for poultry production and can overcome the feed branage and high cost of the conventional ingredients.
The absence of significant difference in feed intake among the treatments might be related to lower feed intake habit of chicks during the starter stage. Comparatively lower feed intake was scored for TW12 than other treatments, which could be due to the relatively high fibre contents of TWM than TW0, TW3 and TW6. Greater daily feed intake was recorded in TW6 than other treatments, which could be attributed to the nutrient composition quality that supplied fair and balanced crude protein and crude fibre requirements to the broilers. This indicated that the 6% TWM inclusion improved feed intakes of broiler chicks. The present result was in line with (Lira et al 2010) who reported that the ration containing 5% dried tomato pomace improved feed intake of broiler chicks. Accordingly, treatments were significantly different in the order of TW6>TW9>TW3>TW0>TW12 indicating that inclusion of TWM in the ration at level above 9% has deleterious effect on final body weight and body weight gain since the feed intake of experimental chicken was decreased due to the fiber contents of the TWM. Whereas 6% seems an optimum level to enhance growth. Higher growth of broiler consumed ration containing 6% (TW6) and 9% (TW9) TWM could be related to greater feed consumption. (Parson et al 1985) stated that fibre contents of experimental ration may affect intestinal transit and decrease the passage of food through gastro intestinal tract in chicks. Thus, the slightly higher fiber content of ration containing TWM might have contributed to lower feed intake and growth of chicken fed with 12% TWM. Similarly, (Ayhan and Aktan 2004) reported absence of significant difference in feed conversion ratio between groups fed with diets containing different levels of dried tomato pomace during 0-3 weeks of age.
Generally, TW0 and TW12 recorded poor feed conversion than the other treatments indicating the lower body weight gain in these treatments. In other word, the group fed the ration containing 6% TWM efficiently utilized the feed than the groups fed on the other diets and converted to ADG and carcass. The current finding agreed with that reported by Sahin et al (2008) who reported that TWM inclusion at 5% improved ADG and FCR of Japanese quails than ADG obtained at 2.5% inclusion. (Ayhan and Aktan 2004) also observed that no significant difference between chickens fed with diets containing 5, 10 and 15% inclusion levels of dried tomato pomace in feed conversion ratio during 4-6 weeks of age.
The current experiment was in line with (Rezaeipour et al 2012) who reported that feeding diets containing different proportion of dried tomato pomace with or without enzyme supplementation on carcass characteristics in broiler chicks were significantly (P<0.05) different among treatments. The study of this result was disagreed with (Nikolakakis et al 2002) also noted that carcass yield was not significantly affected by the level of dietary tomato pulp supplementation in quails. Contrary, (Rezaeipour et al 2012) reported that there was no effect of dried tomato pomace in different levels. on breast percentage. The dressed carcass result of this experiment was in agreement with (El-Hassan 1999) who reported that 5% inclusion of dietary tomato pomace displayed higher values of dressed carcass weight of the chicks. This difference is an attribute of high final body weight and average daily body weight gain recorded by TW6 followed by TW9. Thus, the current study revealed that the groups fed 6 and 9% inclusion levels of TWM in the broiler diet were more efficient than the group fed on the other diets in converting the feed to meat and in partially substituting the high cost protein ingredients in commercial broilers ration. Similar to the current study, (Zahi et al 2015) stated that increasing level of lysine in the diet has a positive impact on breast meat yield of broiler chickens. Moreover, (Sasidhar 2006) also described that increasing the quantity of lysine in the diet has a beneficial effect on breast meat yield of broilers. This investigation was likewise for drumstick-thigh meat yield and (Mukhtar et al 2007) reported that drumstick–thigh meat increased significantly with increasing lysine and methionine content of the diet. The significant difference in carcass parameters might be due to the differences in nutritional contents of each treatments, feed consumption, final body weight and gain recorded by the treatments.
The lower abdominal fat weight was recorded by TW12. This was due to the relatively higher fibre content of TWM and the negative correlation between fibre and fat (Kachenpukdee et al 2016). Moreover, (King and Zeider 2004) reported that the antioxidant activity of lycopene in tomato pomace has the function of reducing the level of fat. Therefore, increasing the level of fibre source feeds and feeds with antioxidant activity characteristics like TWM in chicken’s diet help to reduce excessive fat deposition in the carcass of broilers. (Lira et al 2010) reported that broilers consumed ration containing 5% TWM and the control group did not differ in weight of heart and liver. This experiment shows that there is a positive relationship between TWM and the length of ceaca of chicks. This finding was similar to results of Tabook et al (2006) who noted that an increase in fiber in the diets results in an increase in total digestive tract, small intestine, caecum and pancreas of broilers. Accordingly, the result of the current experiment indicated that treatments differ in the length of ceaca in the order of TW12>TW9>TW6>TW3>TW0.
We would like to acknowledge poultry farm workers in Haramaya University contributed their knowledge and time for the purposes of this study. We would also thanks Haramaya University in general and school of animal science in particular provided financial support to cover the cost of this study. The last but not the least the authors also gratitude for upper awash tomato processing industry for their supported and offered industrial by-product of tomato wastes.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (A.O.A.C) 1990 Official methods of analysis (13thed). Washington D.C.
Aghajanzadeh-Golshani A, Maheri-Sis N, Mirzaei-Aghsaghali A and Baradaran-Hasanzadeh A 2010 Comparison of nutritional value of tomato pomace and brewer's grain for ruminants using in vitro gas production technique. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 5 (1): 43-51.
Ayhan V and Aktan S 2004 Using Possibilities of Dried Tomato Pomace in Broiler Chicken Diets Süleyman Demirel University, Hayvansal Üretim 45(1):19-22.
Brodowski D and Giesman J R 1980 Protein content and amino acid composition of protein of seeds from tomatoes at various stages of ripeness. J. Food Sci., 45: 228-229.
Feedipedia Animal Feed Resources Information System 2016 Carotene Content of Eggs in Laying Hens Effect of Tomato Waste Meal on Lay Performance, Egg Quality Lipid Profile and Carotene Content of Eggs in Laying Hens. Iranian J. of App. Ani Sci.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United State Nations (FAO) 2004 Protein Source for the Animal Feed Industry. Animal production and Health Expert Consultation and Workshop, Pp.26-28, Bangkok.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United State Nations (FAO) 2016 World Crops Production.
Gomez K A and Gomez A A 1984 Statistical procedures for agricultural research.2nd edition. John Willey and Sons, New York.
Habanabashaka M, Sengabo M and Oladunjoye I O 2014 Effect of tomato waste meal on lay performance, egg quality, lipid profile and carotene content of eggs in laying hens. Iranian J. of App Ani Sci, 4(3):555 – 559.
Kachenpukdee N, Santerre Ch R, Ferruzzi M G and Oonsivilai R 2016 Modified Dietary Fiber from Cassava Pulp and Assessment of Mercury Bioaccessibility and Intestinal Uptake Using an In Vitro Digestion/Caco-2 Model System. Journal of Food Science, Vol. 81.
Lira R C, Rabello C B V, Ludke M D C M M, Ferreira P V, Lana G R Q and Lana S R V 2010 Productive performance of broiler chickens fed tomato waste. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39(5): 1074-1081.
Mishra BB, Gebrekidan H, Kibret K, Assen M and Eshetu B 2004 Soil and land resource inventory at the Haramaya University research farm with reference to land evaluation for sustainable agricultural management and production. Synthesis of working papers, Soil Science Bulletin, No 1.123p.Haramaya University.
Mukhta M A, Mekkawi A and Tigani M E L 2007 The effect of feeding increasing level of synthetic lysine and methionine in broiler chicks. Research Journal of Animal and Veterinary Science 2:18-20.
National research council (NRC) 1994 Nutrient requirements of poultry. 9ed. Washington: National Academy of Sciences. 155p.
Nikolakakis D, Banakis P, Florou-paneri V, Dotas I, Gianneasas I and Botsoglou N 2003 Effect of Dried tomato pulp on performance and carcass characteristics of growing quails.
Parsons C M A, Potter L M and Bliss B A 1985 True metabolizable energy corrected to nitrogen equilibrium. Poultry Science, 61:11, p.2241-2246.
Pathakamuri K and Romania J V 2013 Tomato pomace an alternative feed for poultry. Department of Animal Nutrition College of Veterinary Science, Tirupati.
Persia M E, Parsons C M, Schang M and Azcona J 2003 Nutritional evaluation of dried tomato seeds. Poult. Sci., 82: 141-146.
Poore M H 2008 Alternative feeds for beef cattle during periods of low forage availability. North Carolina State University, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Animal Science.
Rezaeipour V, Dastar B, Boldaji F, Yaghobfar A and Gheisari A 2012 Effects of Dietary Dried Tomato Pomace with an Exogenous Enzyme Supplementation on Growth Performance, Meat Oxidative Stability and Nutrient Digestibility of Broiler Chickens: Department of Animal Science, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran
Rossini G, Toscano G, Duca D, Corinaldesi F, Pedretti E F and Riva G 2013 Analysis of the characteristics of the tomato manufacturing residues finalized to the energy recovery. Biomass and Bio energy, 51,177-182.
Safamehr A, Malek H and Nobakhat A 2010 The effect of different levels of tomato pomace with or without multi–enzyme on performance and egg traits of laying hens. Iranian J. of Ani Sci, 1(1): 39-48.
Sahin N, Orhan C, Tuzco M, Sahin K and Kocuk O 2008 The effects of tomato powder supplementation on performance and lipid per oxidation in quail. Poultry Sci.87: 276-283.
Statistical analysis (SAS) 2002 User’s Guide: statistic. Version 9.1.SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Sasidhar P V K 2006 Assessment of Priority Research Areas in Poultry Sector to 2020. Proceedings of National Seminar on poultry Research Priorities to 2020.Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, India ,pp 1-11.
Tabook N M, Kadim IT, Mahgoub O and Al-Marzooqi W 2006 The effect of date fiber supplemented with an exogenous enzyme on the performance and meat quality on broilers chickens. Br. Poult Sci., 47: 73-82
Upper Awash Agro industry (UAAI) 2009 Amount of Processing Tomato. Upper Awash Agro Industry, Merti. Pp, 3.
Waller A 2007 Take a fresh look at broiler nutrition. Poultry International, September 2007, 12-13.
Weiss W P, Frobose D L and Koch M E 2011 Feeding value of wet tomato pomace for dairy cows. The Ohio State Extension Research Bulletin Special Circular. Available from: http://ohioline.osu.edu/science156_25.html.
Wiseman J 1987 Feeding of Non-Ruminant Livestock. Butter worth and C. Ltd. Bodmincornwall, p.370.
Zehai W, Peebles E D, Schiling M W and Mercier Y 2016 Effect of dietary lysine and methionine supplementation on Ross 708 male broilers from 21-42 age (I).growth performance, meat yield and cost effectiveness. Journal of applied poultry research, (25) Pp: 197-211.
Zhang P and Laflamme D P 1999 Use and future prospects for use of soy products in companion animal diets. Opportunities for Soy Products in Animal Nutrition; J.K. Drackley, Ed.; Federation of Animal Science Societies: Savoy, IL, pp. 45–55