GROWING SNAILS | MULBERY LEAF MEAL | RESEARCH CALCULATIONS | RESULTS AND APPENDIX

RESULT

4.1 Growth performance

The result of the growth characteristics of snails fed diets supplemented with Mulberry leaf meal (MBLM) and chromoleana odorata (siam weed) leaf meal (SWLM) is presented in Table 4.

Table 7: Growth characteristics of snails fed diets supplemented with mulberry leaf meal (MBLM) and siam weed leaf meal (SWLM)

Parameters (g)	T1 (0%)	T2 (5% MBLM)	T3 (5% SWLM)	SEM
Initial body weight	45.97	46.01	45.78	0.07
Final bodyweight	160.10^b	160.52^b	166.38^a	2.03
Body weight gain	114.14^b	114.52^b	120.60^a	2.09
Weekly weight gain	14.27^b	14.32^b	15,08^a	0.26
Daily weight gain	2.04^a	2.05^a	1.95^b	0.03
Total feed intake	252.88^b	254.93^ab	257.98^a	1.48
Weekly feed intake	31.62^b	31.37^b	32.25^a	0.26
Daily feed intake	4.52^ab	4.45^a	4.61^a	0.05
Feed conversion ration	2.22^a	2.23^a	2.14^b	0.03

a, b, c: Means with the same superscript in the same row are significantly different (P <0.05).

· MBLM – Mulberry leaf meal

· SWLM – Saim weed leaf meal

· SEM – Standard error of the treatment mean

There was no significant effect in the initial body weight. Significant difference were recorded in their final body weight, body weight gain, total feed intake and feed conversion ratio.

CHAPER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The result presented in table 4 above showed significant (P<0.05 ) difference in all the parameters.

Information on the growth rate of this species (Archachatina maginata) is scarce in literature, especially with the use of diets supplemented with Mullbery and Siam weed leaf meals.

This result differs completely from that of Imran et al. (2011) who reported no significant difference between Mulberry leaf meal (MBLM) and siam weed leaf meal (SWLM) when fed to growing snails. The values for the body weight gain T1 (114.14), T2 (114.52) and T3 (120.60) actually favoured T3 (SWLM) followed by T2 (MBLM) these results however differ with the earlier report of Omole, (2000) who reported daily weight gain of 0.49, the body weight gain of the animals is similar to that reported by Ejidike, (2000). This inconsistency in body weight gain could be attributed to hydration stage, stuntiness and shell heaviness as reported by Stievenart (1992). High voluntary intake of diet T3 (5% SWLM) by the snail could be attributed to the palatability of the foliage to all species of animals as reported by Samkol, (2003). The level of feed intake recorded in snails feed diet T3 (5% SWLM) is similar to that reported by Imaran et al., (2001).

High level of feed conversion was recorded in snails fed T2 diet (5% MBLM) and this could be as a result of excellent nutritional value and organic matter digestibility of Mulberry leaf meal as reported by Omar et al., (1999). This can also be attributed to high crude protein content of 22.5% and palatability of Mulberry leaf meal (Okon and Amalu, 2003).

The optimal performance of the snails used in this study could be attributed to higher response to light which agrees with (Akinnusi, 2002) who reported that a continuous exposure of snails to light increases their rate of feed consumption.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Since the two leaf meals used in this experiment performed better than the control diet, it can therefore be concluded that mulberry and saim-weed leaf meals are very rich nutritionally to act as a good substitutes for replacing soybean meal in the diet of young snails. And also, the high nutrient value of these leaf meals and their palatability make them acceptable to all species of animals.

REFERENCES

Ademolu K. O, Idowu A. B, Matiana C.F, Osinowo, O. A, (2004). Performance, proximate and mineral analysis of African giant land snail (Archachatina marginata) fed different nitrogen sources. African J. Biotech 2004; 3(8):412-417.

Ademosum A.A (1991). Utilization of leucaena as supplement for growing dwarf sheep and goats in the humid zone of West Africa. Small Ruminant Res. 1991;5:75-82.

Adetono, B. (2000). Food and feeding behavior in the Biology of terrestrial mollusesced. GM. Barker). Cab international, walling food, Pp. 259-288.

Ajayi S.S (1978). Observation on the biological and nutritive value of the African giant snail. East Africa Wildlife Journal 16: 85- 95.

Akanji, A.M, (2002). Enhancing the utilization of tropical legume seeds. Faculty of Agric. and Forestry, University of Ibadan, pp. 230.

Akinmoladun, A. C, Bukun, E.O, and Dan-Ologe, I. A, (2007). Phytochemical constituents and anti oxidant properties of extracts from the leaves of Chromoleana odorata. International Journal of Nutrition. 12:337-339.

Akinnusi .O (2002). Introduction to snails and snail farming, omega science publisher, Tinuoso House Lagos.

Aro SO (1990). The effects of Siam weed leaf meal (Chromolaena odorata) on the performance, egg quality characteristics, nutrient utilization, haematological and biochemical indices of layers. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Animal Science, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. pp. 1-84.

Aweh, C.R, (1993). The potential of Siam weed (Chromoleana odorata) as a source of organic matter for soils in the humid tropics. Proc. Int. Symposium on Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and the Sustainability of Tropical Agriculture (ed. Mulongo, K. and Merckx, R.), Nov. 4-6, Leuven, Belgium. Pp:89-99.

Barcelo, N. (1981). Utilization of fodder tree for the production of milk and meat (3) Livestock Research. Vol. 53(9): 969-972 (In Japanese)

Bender (1992) Potentials of micro livestock in developing countries. J. Appl. Res ,10.

Bequaest, J.C, 1950. Studies in the Achatininae, a group of African land snails. Bull. Mus: comp. 2001. Harvard, 105: 1-216.Bulletin. 1: 17-24.

Checke, P.R. and Myer, R.O 1975. Protein digestibility and Iysmie availability in a Ifate Meal and Alfalfal protein concentrate. International Journal of Nutrition, 12:337-339.

Datin, P.E, (1992). The biology of Chromolaena odorata (L. King and Robison) 1. Flowering behaviour, pattern of growth and nitrate metabolism. Philippians Weed Science Bulletin. 1:17-24.

Ebenebe, V., Gupta, V.P., and Srikantas W.Y, (2011). Limear models for the predication of leaf rust and leaf spot diseases of mulberry, PP 2.2:331-344.

Egonmwan, R.I. 2004. Maturation timing in the land snails Archachatina marginata Ovum (Pfelffer) and limicolaria flamea (Mullor) (Pulmonata: Achatinidae). Invert. Reproduction Dev. 46: 1 59-172 . afalfa hay and oat hay in sheep. Animal feed science of Technology, pp 138:239-253.

Ejidike, J. k. M, (2000). Effects of different types of food on the growth of Achertina Achatina in: Abstracts of the both international malacological congress, Vigo, 488-489.

Espinoza, E.; Benavides J.E. y Ferreire, P.1999. Evaluación de tres variedades de morera (Morus alba) en tres sitios ecológicos de Costa Rica y bajo tres niveles de fertilización. Citado por Benavides, J.E., 1999.

Esquivel, L.O, Kawasluma, T, and sural, P.H. 1996., Technological constraints and opportunities in relation to class of livestock and production objectives. CAB internation Journal. Pp. 7-24.

FAO. (1986). Mulberry cultivation. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 73/1, Rome, 127p.

Fasuyi, A.O, Fejemilelin, K.S.O, and Aro S.O 2005. Nutritional potentials of Siam weed (Chromoleana odorata) lead med (SWML) on laying hens: Biochemical and haematological implications. Pakistian Journal of Nutrition, 4:336-42.

Gonzaloz, J., Benavide, J. E. and Archimede, P.P,(2008). Productive response of tropical lambs reared in two contrasting management systems after weaning and using woody forage species. Livestock Resources Rural Development. 20 (11).

Hamzet, A.I, Terve, O.O, Adebowde, E.A, Ogundola, F.I, and Nwovgu, F.C (2005). Performance of Different Breeds of snails under the same management conditions. Tropical Journal of Anim Sci 3 (1): 133-138.

Imevbore, E.A and Ademosun, A.A (1988). The nutritive value of the African Giant land snail. Journal of Animal Production Res. 8:76-87.

Imevbore, E.A and A.A Ademosun, 1988. The nutritive value of the African Giant land snail Archachatina marginata. Journal of Animal production Res., 8:76-84.

Imran, G.T. Ogungbile, I.A, and Oyeleye B. (2011). The growth performance of young Archachartina marginata Swaison (African Giant Snail) fed with mulberry (Mous alba) and Siam-Weed (Chromoleana Odorata) leaf meal supplement any Diet. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. Volume 10 Pp 836-837.

Iwu, M.M., (1993). Hand Book of African Medicinal Plants CRC. Press, London, Pp: 183-184

Jennifer,T.R, (1975). Effect of supplementation with sweet potato root and paddy rice on growth performance of local rabbits fed water spinach (Ipomoea aquatic) and paper mulberry (Broussonetia Papyrifera) as basal diets. Livestock Research for rural Development. Volume, 21 Artide N 176.

Machii, H. 1989. Varietal differences of nitrogen and amino acid contents in

mulberry leaves. Acta Sericologica et entomologica (Japan) 1, September, 1989, p51-61.

Madrid JA (1974). Biology of Chromolaena odorata. Philippine J. Weed Sci., (1) April, 1974. meat (3). Livestock Research. Vol. 53(9):969-972 (In Japanese)

Moad, A.R. 1950 Comparative genital Anatomy of some African Achatinidae (Pulmenata) Bull. Mus. Comp. 2001, Harvard, 105:221-291.

Nigbert, A. (1974). Foliage yield of different varieties of mulberry (Morus species) grown at two spacings in hill of West Bengal. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 63(1): 36-37

Nwokolo E (1987). Leaf meals of cassava (manihot esculenta) and Siam weed (Eupatorium odoratum) as nutrient sources in poultry diets. Nutri. Report Int. 36: 819-826.

Okon, P.B and Amalu, U.C, 2003. Using weed to fight weed. LEIAS Magazine. http.//www. metatro. Be/leisa/2003/19421. Pdf.

Omar, S.S, Shayo, C.M. and Uden, P., 1999. Voluntary intake and digestibility of mulberry (morus alba) diet by growing goats. Tropical grasslands, 33:171-181.

Osho I. B, Awoniyi, T. A. M and Adebayo, A.I (2007). Mycological investigation of compounded poultry feeds used in poultry forms in Southwest Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. Vol, 6 No. 15.

Oviedo, J.S, Loca, P.N and Doran P.E (1994) Total tract and rumen digestibility of mulberry foliage (morusalba),pattern of growth and nitrate metabolism. Philippian Weed Science

Philips, J.E.M, (1992). The Influence of food quality on the assimilation, body growth and egg production in the pond snail Iymnaea Stagnalis L.) with particular reference to the haemlympha- glucose concentration. 81: 184-197.

Reed, C.F, 1976. Information summaries on 1000 economic plants. Typescript submitted to the SDA.

Rojas, U.V. and Benavide, J, 1994. Utilization of mulberry in Animal production FAO animal production Health paper 147, Rome, Italia Pp.291-327.

Samkol, P.K, (2003). Effect of method of offering muntingia (Muntinyia calabura) Fologaes to goals on intake and feeding behavior. Retrieved December 11, 110, from MEKARN Mini Projects.

Shayo, C.M. 1997. Uses, yield and nutritive value of mulberry (morus alba) trees for ruminants in semi-arid areas of Central Tanzania. Tropical Grasslands 31:599-604.

Stievenart, Y.A (1992). Practices Guide to Snails Rearing Gratitude Enterprises Lagos. P 27.

Swaninson, J.U, (1991). Food, feeding rates and assimilation in woodland snail. Oecologia 4:358-373.

Yusuf, C.R. (2002). Mulberry varieties, explotation and pathology. Sericologia

24(3):333-359.

APPENDIX I

INITIAL LIVE WEIGHT (G)

	T₁ (counted)	T₂(Mulberry)	T₃ (saim)
R₁	45.83	45.00	45.49
R₂	46.00	46.83	45.93
R₃	44.80	47.00	44.50
R₄	46.30	44.30	46.00
R₅	46.90	46.90	47.00
∑x	2229.83	230.03	228.92	688.78
X	45.77	46.01	45.78	137.7

CFM = (∑^rt_ij X_ij)² r = 5

rt t = 3

= (688.78)²

5 x 3

= 474417.8884

= 31627.859

Total ss = ∑^rt_ij=1 X²_i - CFM

= 45.83² +…..+45.00²+ ….+47.00² -31627.859

= 31640.0328 – 31627.859

= 12.174

Trt ss = ∑^t_i=1 X²_i - CFM

= 229.83²+ 230.03²228.92² – 31627.859

= 158139.9962 – 31627.859

= 31627.9992 – 31627.859

= 0.1402

Error s.s = total ss – trt ss

= 12.174 – 0.1402

= 12.03

Anova table

Source	d.f	Ss	m.s	f-cal	f-tab 5%	1%
Trt (t-1)	2	0.1402	0.0701	0.070ns	3.88	6.93
Error t(r-1)	12	12.03	1.0025
Total (Tr-1)	14	12.174

Not significant ( p> 0.05)

SEM = Sx

= 0.123

= 0.07

SEM-Standard error of the mean

Sx = Sx²

Sx2 = ∑x² – (∑x)²/n

n-1

= 6325.9694 – (137.76)²/3

3 -1

Sx² = 0.0151

Sx = 0.0151

= 0.123

APPENDIX II

INITIAL LIVE WEIGHT (G)

	T₁ (counted)	T₂(Mulberry)	T₃(siam weed)
R₁	160.67	161.00	165.49
R₂	161.00	163.83	164.93
R₃	159.09	161.00	164.50
R₄	159.30	158.59	167.00
R₅	160.46	158.20	170.00
∑x	800.52	802.62	831.92	2435.06
X	160.10	160.52	166.38	487.00

CFM = (∑^rt_ij X_ij)² r = 5

rt t = 3

= (2435.06²

5 x 3

= 5929517.204

= 395301.1469

Total ss = ∑^rt_ij=1 X²_i - CFM

= 160.69² +…..+161.00²+ ….+170.00² -395301.1469

= 395467.7706 – 395301.1469

= 166.624

Trt ss = ∑^t_i=1 X²_i - CFM

= 800.52²+ 802.62²+831.92² – 395301.1469

= 1977122.021 – 395301.1469

= 395424.4042 – 395301.1469

= 123.257

Error s.s = total ss – trt ss

= 166.624 – 123.257

= 43.367

Anova table

Source	d.f	Ss	m.s	f-cal	f-tab 5%	1%
Trt (t-1)	2	0.1402	0.0701	0.070ns	3.88	6.93
Error t(r-1)	12	12.03	1.0025
Total (Tr-1)	14	12.174

Not significant ( p> 0.05)

SEM = Sx

= 0.123

= 0.07

SEM-Standard error of the mean

Sx = Sx²

Sx2 = ∑x² – (∑x)²/n

n-1

= 6325.9694 – (137.76)²/3

3 -1

Sx² = 0.0151

Sx = 0.0151

= 0.123

APPENDIX III

BODY WEIGHT GAIN (G)

	T₁ (control)	T₂(Mulberry)	T₃(saim weed)
R₁	114.84	116.00	120.00
R₂	115.00	117.00	119.00
R₃	114.29	114.00	120.00
R₄	113.00	114.29	121.00
R₅	113.56	113.30	123.00
∑x	570.69	572.59	603.00	1746.28
X	114.14	114.52	120.60	349.26

CFM = (∑^rt_ij X_ij)² r = 5

rt t = 3

= (1746.28)²

5 x 3

= 3049493.838

= 203299.589

Total ss = ∑^rt_ij=1 X²_i - CFM

= 114.84² +…..+116.00²+ ….+123.00² -203299.589

= 203462.1974 – 203299.589

= 162.608

Trt ss = ∑^t_i=1 X²_i - CFM

= 870.69²+ 572.59²+603.00² – 203299.589

= 203431.0768 – 203299.589

= 131.488

Error s.s = total ss – trt ss

= 162.608 – 131.488

= 31.120

Anova table

Source	d.f	Ss	m.s	f-cal	f-tab 5%	1%
Trt (t-1)	2	131.488	65.744	25.38**	3.88	6.93
Error t(r-1)	12	31.120	2.59
Total (Tr-1)	14	162.608

Highly significant ( p> 0.01)

F-LSD ₁₂ = t x Sd

= 3.055 x 2 x 2.59

= 3.055 x 1.036

= 3.055 x 1.018

= 3.11

T = 3.055

Sd = 2S²

r² = 2.59

r = 5

	114.14	114.52	120.60
120.60	6.46*	6.08*	0
114.52	0.38^ns	0
114.14	0

T₃T₂T₁

120.60 114.52 114.14

a b b

T₃T₂T₁

120.60^a 114.52^b 114.14^b

There are significant difference between

T₃&T₂

T₃&T₁

No significant difference between

T₂&T₁

SEM = Sx

= 3.62497

= 2.09

APPENDIX IV

AVERAGE WEEKLY WEIGHT GAIN (G)

	T₁ (control)	T₂(Mulbery)	T₃ (saim weed)
R₁	14.36	14.50	15.00
R₂	14.38	14.63	14.88
R₃	14.29	14.25	15.00
R₄	14.13	14.29	15.13
R₅	14.20	13.91	15.38
∑x	71.36	71.58	75.39	218.33
X	14.27	14.32	15.08	43.67

CFM = (∑^rt_ij X_ij)² r = 5

rt t = 3

= (218.33)²

5 x 3

= 47667.9889

= 3177.86593

Total ss = ∑^rt_ij=1 X²_i - CFM

= 14.36² +…..+14.50²+ ….+15.38² -3177.86593

= 3180.4123 – 3177.86593

= 2.546

Trt ss = ∑^t_i=1 X²_i - CFM

= 71.36²+ 71.58²+75.39² – 3177.86593

= 15899.5981 – 3177.86593

= 3179.91962 – 3177.86593

= 2.0537

Error s.s = total ss – trt ss

= 2.546 – 2.054

= 0.492

Anova table

Source	d.f	Ss	m.s	f-cal	f-tab 5%	1%
Trt (t-1)	2	2.054	1.027	25.05**	3.88	6.93
Error t(r-1)	12	0.492	0.041
Total (Tr-1)	14	2.546

Highly significant ( p> 0.01)

Mean separation using FLSD

F-LSD ₁₂ = t x Sd

= 3.055 x 2 x 0.041

= 3.055 x 0.0164

= 3.055 x 0.1281

= 0.391

T = 3.055

Sd = 2S²

S² = 0.041

r = 5

	14.27	14.32	15.08
15.08	0.81*	0.76*	0
14.32	0.05^ns	0
14.27	0

T₃T₂T₁

15.08 14.32 14.27

b a a

There are significant difference between treatment 1 and treatment 2

APPENDIX VI

TOTAL FEED INTAKE (G)

	T₁ (control)	T₂(Mulbery)	T₃ (saim weed)
R₁	253.00	255.55	257.91
R₂	254.00	253.48	259.00
R₃	250.91	254.00	255.00
R₄	256.61	256.93	260.01
R₅	249.90	255.20	258.00
∑x	1264.42	1274.66	1289.92	3829
X	252.58	254.93		3829

CFM = (∑^rt_ij X_ij)² r = 5

rt t = 3

= 3829

5 x 3

= 977416.6667

Total ss = ∑^rt_ij=1 X²_i - CFM

= 253² +…..+255.05²+ ….+258² -977416.6667

= 977530.9762 – 977416.6667

= 114.9095

Trt ss = ∑^t_i=1 X²_i - CFM

= 1264.42²+ 1274.66²+1289.92² – 977416.6667

= 4887409.658 – 977416.6667

= 977481.9317 – 977416.6667

= 065.865

Error s.s = total ss – trt ss

= 114.9095 – 65.865

= 49.045

Anova table

Source	d.f	Ss	m.s	f-cal	f-tab 5%	1%
Trt (t-1)	2	65.865	32.933	8.058**	3.88	6.93
Error t(r-1)	12	49.045	4.087
Total (Tr-1)	14	114.9095

highly significant ( p> 0.05) mean separation using F-Lsd

F-LSD ₁₂ = t x Sd

= 3.055 x 2 x 4.089

= 3.055 x 1.6348

= 3.055 x 1.2786

= 3.91

T = 3.055

Sd = 2S²

S² = 4.087

r = 5

	252.88	254.93	257.98
257.98	5.10*	3.05^ns	0
254.93	2.05^ns	0
252.88	0

T₃	T₂	T₁
257.98	254.93	252.88
A	A	B
	B	B
	T₁

252.88^b

T₃	T₂
257.98^a	254.93^b

No significance difference between T₃& T₂and T₂& T₁

Significant difference between T_3
&T₁

T₃T₂T₁

257.98^a 254.93^ab 252.88^b

There are significant difference between the treatment means.

APPENDIX VII

AVERAGE WEEKLY FEED INTAKE (G)

	T₁ (control)	T₂(Mulbery)	T₃ (saim weed)
R₁	31.63	31.88	32.24
R₂	31.75	31.65	32.38
R₃	31.36	30.50	31.88
R₄	32.11	30.87	32.50
R₅	31.24	31.90	32.25
∑x	158.09	156.84	161.25	476.18
X	31.62	31.37	32.25	95.24

CFM = (∑^rt_ij X_ij)² r = 5

rt t = 3

= (476.18)²

5 x 3

= 226747.3924

= 15116^.493

Total ss = ∑^rt_ij=1 X²_i - CFM

= 31.63² +…..+31.88²+ ….+32.25² - 15116^.493

= 15120.895 – 15116^.493

= 4.402

Trt ss = ∑^t_i=1 X²_i - CFM

= 158.09²+ 156.84²+161.25² – 15116^.493

= 75592.7962 – 15116^.493

= 15118.55924 – 15116^.493

= 2.066

Error s.s = total ss – trt ss

= 4.402 – 2.066

= 2.34

Anova table

Source	d.f	Ss	m.s	f-cal	f-tab 5%	1%
Trt (t-1)	2	2.066	1.033	5.297**	3.88	6.93
Error t(r-1)	12	2.34	0.195
Total (Tr-1)	14	4.402

highly significant ( p> 0.05)

mean separation using F-Lsd

F-LSD ₁₂ = t x Sd

= 2.179 x 2 x 0.195

= 2.179 x 0.078

= 2.179 x 0.2793

= 0.609

T = 2.179

Sd = 2S²

S² = 0.195

r = 5

32.25	31.37	31.62	32.25
31.62	0.88*	0.63^*	0
31.37	0.25^ns	0
	0

32.25	31.62	31.37
a	A	b
	B	b

APPENDIX IX

FEED CONSERVATION RATIO (FCR)

	T₁ (control)	T₂(Mulbery)	T₃ (saim weed)
R₁	2.203	2.199	2.149
R₂	2.209	2.166	2.176
R₃	2.195	2.228	2.125
R₄	2.271	2.248	2.149
R₅	2.201	2.293	2.098
∑x	11.079	11.134	10.697	32.91
X	2.216	2.227	2.139

CFM = (∑^rt_ij X_ij)² r = 5

rt t = 3

= (32.91)²

5 x 3

= 1083.0681

= 72.205

Total ss = ∑^rt_ij=1 X²_i - CFM

= 2.203² +…..+2.199²+ ….+2.098² - 72.205

= 72.2439 – 72.205

= 0.0389

Trt ss = ∑^t_i=1 X²_i - CFM

= 11.079²+ 11.134²+10.697² – 72.205

= 72.227201 – 72.205

= 0.0222

Error s.s = total ss – trt ss

= 0.0389 – 0.0222

= 0.0167

Anova table

Source	d.f	Ss	m.s	f-cal	f-tab 5%	1%
Trt (t-1)	2	0.022	0.0110	7.75*	3.88	6.93
Error t(r-1)	12	0.017	0.00142
Total (Tr-1)	14	0.039

Significant ( p> 0.05)

Mean separation using F-Lsd

F-LSD ₁₂ = t x Sd

= 2.179 x 2 x 0.0014

= 2.179 x 0.00056

= 2.179 x 0.0237

= 0.0516

T = 2.179

Sd = 2S²

S² = 0.0014

r = 3

	2.139	2.216	2.227
2.227	0.088*	0.011^ns	0
2.216	0.077*	0
2.139	0

T₃	T₂	T₁
2.227^a	2.216^b	2.139^b
	T₁	T₂

No significance difference between T₂& T₁

there T₃Significant difference from T₂and T₁

OTHER POSTS ON AGRICULTURE

· How To Make Huge Profit From Poultry Farm Business...

· Some Causes Of Poultry Business Failure

· How To Handle Pigs For Optimum Performance In Your...

· How To Move Your Pig From One Location To Another

· How To Handle Snail In The Nursery - Snail Management...

· Local Management Of Rabbit In The World Today

· Rabbit Management In Nigeria - Africa

· Farming Websites In Nigeria - Chris Farm Nigeria

· Construction Of A Fish Pond In Nigeria Processes I...

· How To Produce Local Floating Fish Feed For Cat Fish...

· How To Own A Mega Fish Farm Business In Nigeria

· Cat Fish Farming Research - Groups Of Fish

· A Prepared Feasibility Study For Catfish Farm In Nigeria...

· Control Methods Of Aquatic Weeds

· Fish Culturing And Farming Fish In Cages

· Floating Local Fish Feed Production In Nigeria

· How To Get Loan For Fish Farming Business In Nigeria...

· Snails And Slugs - Pest Management

· Local& Foreign Grass Cutter Production

· Local Fish Pond Construction My Area

· Construction Of A Fish Pond In Nigeria Processes

· Types Of Pond Construction For Fish Farming

· Feasibility Study On Local Fish Farming

· Feasibility Report Or Study On Fish Farming

· Local Fish Processing, Spoilage And Preservation

At Martins Library, We provide Informative Materials for Writing Books, Projects, Seminars, Journals, Articles, Proposals, Feasibility Study Etc For Business And Educational Purposes. We also teach you how to print recharge card from the comfort of your home or office.

Click on the related links below and read more.

We can keep you updated on this information, please Subscribe for Free by entering your email address in the space provided.

Do you like this article? Share this article

Follows us on Google Plus Facebook & Twitter

CONTACT US TODAY FOR OUR SERVICES