Comparative evaluation of grass, legume and their mixture with brewers' spent grains fed to west african dwarf rams
Table Of Contents
<p>
</p><p>Title page – – – – – – – – – i</p><p>Certification – – – – – – – – – ii</p><p>Dedication – – – – – – – – – iii</p><p>Acknowledgement – – – – – – – – iv</p><p>Abstract – – – – – – – – – vi</p><p>Table of Contents – – – – – – – – vii</p><p>List of Tables – – – – – – – – – x </p><p><b>
Chapter ONE
: INTRODUCTION</b></p><p>1.1 Background of the Study – – – – – – – 1</p><p>1.2 Statement of Problem – – – – – – – 2</p><p>1.3 Objectives of the Study – – – – – – – 3</p><p>1.4 Justification of the Study – – – – – – – 3</p><p><b>
Chapter TWO
: LITERATURE REVIEW </b></p><p>2.1 General Description of Sheep – – – – – – 4</p><p>2.2 Taxonomy of Sheep – – – – – – – 5</p><p>2.3 Sheep Production Statistics – – – – – – 5</p><p>2.4 Characteristics/Importance of Sheep – – – – – 7</p><p>2.4.1 Small Size – – – – – – – – 7</p><p>2.4.2 Reproductive efficiency – – – – – – <br>– 8</p><p>2.4.3 Feeding behavior – – – – – – – 8</p><p>2.4.4 Feed Utilization Efficiency – – – – – – 9</p><p>2.4.5 Fitness – – – – – – – – – 10</p><p>2.4.6 Socio-economic – – – – – – – – 10</p><p>2.5 Nutrient Requirements of Sheep – – – – – – 11</p><p>2.6 Factors Affecting Nutrient Requirements- – – – 14</p><p>2.7 Constraints and<br>Possible Remedies to Sheep Production- – – 16</p><p>2.7.1 Major constraints to ruminant production (Sheep<br>Production) – – 16</p><p>2.7.2 Remedies to Sheep production constraints – – – – 17</p><p>2.8 Digestibility- – – – – – – – – 17</p><p>2.8.1 Digestibility of mixed forages with BSG – – – – 18</p><p>2.8.2 Digestibility of grasses mixed with <i>Gliricidia sepium </i>– – -19</p><p>2.9 Estimating Digestibility of Fibre – – – – – – 19</p><p>2.9.1 Factors affecting fibre digestibility – – – – – – 20</p><p>2.10 Forages – – – – – – – – – 22</p><p>2.10.1 Grass forage – – – – – – – – 23</p><p>2.10.1.1 Guinea grass – – – – – – – – 23</p><p>2.10.1.2 Nutritional qualities of guinea grass- – – – – 24</p><p>2.10.2 Forage legumes – – – – – – – 25</p><p>2.10.2.1 <i>Gliricidia<br>sepium </i>– – – – – – -27</p><p>2.11 Brewer’ Spent<br>Grains (BSG) – – – – – – 28</p><p>2.11.1 Future Perspective of Brewers Spent Grains – – – – 29</p><p>2.11.2 Chemical Composition of Brewers’ Spent Grain – – – 29</p><p><b>
Chapter THREE
:<br>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b></p><p>3.1 Experimental site – – – – – – – – 32</p><p>3.2 Experimental animals – – – – – – – 32</p><p>3.3 Experimental treatments – – – – – – – 32</p><p>3.4 Data collection – – – – – – – – 33</p><p>3.5 Experimental design – – – – – – – 34</p><p><b>
Chapter FOUR
: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</b></p><p>4.1 Proximate<br>Composition (% DM) of Forages and BSG – – 35</p><p>4.2 Proximate<br>Composition (% DM) of Faeces – – – – 37</p><p>4.3Voluntary and Nutrient<br>Intake of WAD sheep Fed</p><p><i> P. maximum</i>, <i>Gliricidia</i> and BSG- – – – – – 38</p><p>4.4 Digestibility of WAD Rams fed <i>P. maximum,</i></p><p><i>Gliricidia sepium</i> and BSG – – – – – – – 41</p><p>4.5Nitrogen Balance of<br>WAD rams fed <i>P. maximum,</i></p><p><i>Gliricidia sepium</i> and Brewers’ Spent Grains.<b> – – – </b>42</p><p><b>
Chapter FIVE
:<br>CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION</b></p><p>5.1 Conclusion – – – – – – – – 44</p><p>5.3 Recommendation<br> – – – – – – – 44</p><p> References </p><p> Appendix</p><p><b>LIST OF TABLES</b></p><p>Table 1 Experimental Layout – – – – – 34</p><p>Table 2Proximate<br>Composition (% DM) of Forages and BSG- 36</p><p>Table 3 <br>Proximate Composition (% DM) of Faeces – – 38</p><p>Table 4Voluntary and<br>Nutrient Intake of WAD Sheep</p><p>Fed <i>P. maximum</i>,<br><i>Gliricidia</i> and BSG – – – 39</p><p>Table 5Digestibility of<br>WAD Rams Fed <i>P. maximum,</i></p><p><i>Gliricidia<br>sepium</i> and BSG – – – – 42</p><p>Table 6<br> Nitrogen Balance of WAD Rams<br>fed</p><p><i>P. maximum,<br>Gliricidia sepium</i> and Brewers’</p><p>Spent Grains – – – – – – 43</p>
<br><p></p>
Project Abstract
<p>
Four West African Dwarf sheep<br>were used to investigate the effect of brewers’ spent grains supplementation on<br>the utilization of mixed forage diets. The sheep were randomly assigned three<br>dietary treatments treatment 1- <i>Gliricidia<br>sepium (G. sepium</i>) + 200 g brewers’ spent grain (BSG), treatment 2- <i>Panicum maximum </i>(<i>P. maximum</i>) grass + 200 g BSG, and treatment 3- <i>G. sepium</i> (50%) + <i>P. maximum</i> (50%) + 200 g BSG, with four rams per treatment diet for<br>42 days. Data were collected on<br>feed intake and faeces voided during a digestibility trial. The results<br>revealed that animals fed on Treatment1 recorded the highest (p<0.05) total<br>dry matter intake (1626.83 g), total crude fibre intake (464.56 g), total<br>nitrogen free extract (846.35 g) and total organic matter intake (1563.69 g).<br>Animals on treatment 2 recorded the highest (p<0.05) total crude protein<br>intake (274.06 g) and total ether extract intake (73.19 g). Highest ash intake<br>was recorded in treatment 3 (76.65 g). Animals fed treatment 2 recorded the<br>highest digestibility % (P<0.05) in all nutrient parameters, while the least<br>was observed for those fed diet treatment 3. Animals fed treatment 2 utilized their diet efficiently<br>and which resulted in best digestibility while the least efficiency of<br>utilization was observed in animals on diet treatment 3. Results from this<br>study revealed that supplementation of forages with agro-industrial by-products<br>such as BSG enhances utilization of forages.
<br></p>
Project Overview
<p>
</p><p>Inadequate feeding is a major limiting factor to small<br>ruminant production in tropical Africa (Ademosun, 2010). Fodder is of poor<br>nutritional value for most of the year due to the rainfall pattern. In the arid<br>and semi-arid zones, rainfall is less than 600 mm and between 600-1000 mm per<br>year, respectively. Many conventional diets for ruminants in the tropics are<br>poor quality roughages typified by high Neutral Detergent Fibre (NDF), low<br>nitrogen contents and slow fermentation rates. This poor dietary combination<br>leads to decreased intake, weight loss, increased susceptibility to health<br>risks and reduced reproductive performance. Including herbaceous legumes in<br>these feeding regimes helps to rectify some of the problems associated with low<br>protein and high fibre diets. Poppi and Mclennan, (1995) suggested that to<br>optimise the benefits of lablab as a feed source, it should be grazed in<br>conjunction with poor quality feedstuffs.</p><p>The quality of available forage is low and browse species<br>which can provide higher levels of proteins and carbohydrates are sparsely<br>dispersed. In the humid and sub-humid zones, up to six months of the year can<br>be rainless, resulting in poor quality forages. The rapid buildup of cell-wall<br>materials and decline in crude protein (CP) content with maturity reduces the<br>nutritional value of the forages. Little is known about the nutritional value,<br>distribution, palatability, seedling vigour and seasonal production of the<br>forage species that characterise the natural grassland. This is particularly<br>true of the arid, semi-arid and sub-humid areas which contain 75% of the sheep<br>and 80% of the goats of tropical Africa and where the rangeland is the most<br>important source of food (FAOSTAT, 2013). Besides the use of browse, other<br>strategies can be employed to improve the feeding of animals. During the dry<br>season, the quality of available herbage is so low that, unless the animals<br>have access to supplementary feeds, they lose weight. These supplementary feeds<br>can be obtained from agro-industrial by-products such as residues of oil<br>extracted from oil bearing seeds (groundnuts, coconut, palm kernels, cotton<br>seed, soyabean etc), by-products of grain processing (maize, rice, wheat,<br>sorghum, millet etc), peelings of crops (yams, cassava, potatoes, plantains</p>
<br><p></p>