CHAPTER
THREE
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SITE:
The experiment was conducted at
the Ruminant Unit of Teaching and Research Farm, Department of Animal Science,
Ebonyi State University, CAS Campus Abakaliki. The experiment lasted for 8
weeks
3.2 EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS AND SOURCE:
Twelve weaned West African dwarf
goats (WADG) of about 3 months of age and average weight of 6.0 + 0.2kg
were sourced from the local markets within Abakaliki and Izzi local government
areas of Ebonyi State, Nigeria.
3.3
CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ANIMAL
The animals (goats) were housed
in the ruminant unit (intensive unit of production). They were quarantined to
stabilize and acclimatize to experimental diet, using ivermection injection
which was administered 0.1 ml per animal. They were also drenched with ASP
powder against pest des petit ruminants (PPR). The animals were fed as required
by the experiment and proper sanitation was strictly adhered to.
3.4 EXPERIMENTAL DIET
The animals were fed four diets
comprising combinations of Gmelina
arborea leaf meal and graded levels of Aspergillus treated rice husk. Diet A
(T1) was the control and it contained 100% Gmelina arborea leaf meal and 0% rice husk, Diet B (T2)
contained 25% Aspergillus treated rice husk and 75% Gmelina arborea leaf meal, Diet C (T3) contained 50% Gmelina arborea leaf meal and 50% Aspergillus
treated rice husk, while Diet D (T4) contained 75% rice husk and 25%
Gmelina arborea leaf meal.
3.5 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Three
goats each were randomly assigned to each experimental diet.. Gmelina arborea leaf meal was sourced from
the forest located behind Ebonyi State University Nursery and Primary school
while the rice husk was obtained from the rice mills within the state.
The
goats were fed 200g on fresh weight to supply 90g of dry matter requirement of the
animal. They were fed 1.8% of the body weight daily.
Inoculums
(Aspergillus niger) were isolated from soil sample collected from compost plot
near where rice husk was deposited in the rice mills and maintained on potato
dextrose agar (PDA)
The
rice husk which served as substrate was soaked in water and sun dried to a
moisture content of 6-7% and packed in poly thene bags.
3.5.1 INOCULATION AND INCUBATION
Each bag of the substrate was inoculated with
5ml of the spore suspension.
The
inoculated substrate was later incubated at room temperature for about 7 days, when
the fungus had covered the substrates. The fungus treated rice husk was later
oven – dried in a laboratory at 70oc in preparation for inclusion to
the experimental diets.
3.6
DATA COLLECTION
I.
feed intake and
growth parameters: data
were collected on average daily weight gain, average weekly weight gain, total
weight gain, total feed intake, average weekly feed intake, average daily feed
intake, feed conversion ratio
II.
haematological
parameters:
data were collected on packed cell volume, red blood cell count white blood
cell count, and haemoglobin concentration.
3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data collected were subjected to statistical analysis
using analysis of variance (ANOVA) in a completely randomized design (CRD).
Significant treatment means were
separated using the Least significant difference(LSD) (Obi 2001).
3.8 HAEMATOLOGICAL PROCEDURE
Blood sample was
collected from the vein of the animal into a plastic tube containing ethylene
diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) for the haematological studies.
Using standard techniques as reported
by Jain (1986), the packed cell volume (PCV), red blood cell count (RBC),
haemoglobin concentration (Hb), total white blood cells count (WBC) were
determined.
3.7 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The
experimental design used was completely randomized design (CRD) according to
steel and Torrie (1980). The linear additive model for the CRD used was
Xij = µ
+ τi + Εij
Where Xij = the
jth observation
µ = overall estimate of the population
mean.
Ï„i = effect of
the experimental diet
Εij = Randomized
error associated with the experiment in each
parameter
i = number
of treatments
j = number
of replicate
Means differences were found
statistically and separated using ordinary least significant difference test
(LSD) (Obi 1990).
RESULT
4.1 GROWTH PERFORMANCE
The result of the growth
performance of goats fed Gmelina arborea
supplemented with Aspergillus treated rice husk is presented in the table 2.
Table
2: growth performance of goats fed Gmelina
arborea leaf meal supplemented with Aspergillus treated rice husk
Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 SEM
|
Av.
Initial live weight(kg) 6.03
6.10 6.07 5.96 0.03
Av.
Final live weight(kg) 7.12b 7.77a 7.17b 6.91c 0.19
Av.
Weekly weight gain (kg) 0.133b 0.209a 0.138b 0.119b 0.02
Av.
Daily weight gain(kg) 0.019b 0.03a
0.020b 0.018b 0.0028
Feed
conversion ratio 8.37a 5.052c 6.557b 6.715b 0.68
Av.
Weekly feed intake(kg) 1.o6b 1.09a 0.90c 0.80c 0.07
Av.
Daily feed intake(kg) 0.151a 0.55ab 0.129bbc 0.114c 0.015
Total
feed intake(kg) 8.42b 8.69a 7.21bc 6.40c 0.054
|
a, b,
c, : means with similar super scripts are not significantly different
(P>0.05).
There was a significant (P<0.05)
effect of supplementation on the weight gain of the goats. Goats under diet A
(T1) had significantly (P<0.05) high feed conversion ratios
(8.37) than those on diet B (T2) (5.052).
4.2 HAEMATOLOGICAL INDICES
The result of the haematological
study of goats fed Gmelina arborea supplemented
with Aspergillus treated rice husk is presented in the table 3 blow.
Table
3,
Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 SEM
|
Packed
cell volume % 19.7b 20.5a 19.4b 18.6b 0.4
White
blood cell x1011 /µl 4.4ab 4.5a 4.1b 3.86c 0.15
Haemoglobin
count g/dl 5.9b 6.04a 5.7bc 4.9c 0.06
Red
blood cell x1012 /µl
5.4a 6.09a 5.4a 4.7b 0.029
|
a,
b, c, means with different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05)
from each other.
There was significant (p<0.05)
effect on goats on their haematological indices.
DISCUSSION
In table 2, goats
consuming T2 T3 had significantly (p<0.05) higher
weight gain that those consuming diets T1 and T4. The average
final body weight was significantly (p<0.05) different among the treatments.
Goats on diet A (T2 ) had the highest final live weight (7.77kg)
followed by diets C(T3), A(T1)lastly diet D(T4)
with averages of 7.17kg, 7.12kg and 6.91kg respectively.
The
average weekly weight gain 0.209kg, 0.138kg, 0.133kg and 0.119kg for goats on treatments
2, 3, and 4 respectively were recorded. From the above it could be noticed that
high increment in the level of rice husk brought about decrease in weight gain,
with diet B having the highest weight gain (0.209kg), which has 25% rice husk
inclusion followed by diet C which has 50% rice husk inclusion. The performance
decreased as the level of rice husk increases in the diets. It could be
attributed to high fibre contents of the diet.
Supplementation
of rice husk had a positive influence on the live weight gain of the animals in
this study. Diet B (25% rice husk) has a marginal increase.
Goats
on diets B and A had significantly (p<0.05) higher feed intake than goats consuming
diets C and D respectively, the average weekly feed intake of 1.09kg, 1.06kg,
0.90kg and 0.80kg for diets B, A, C and D respectively. It could be noticed
that higher increase in the level of rice husk brought about decline or
decrease in feed intake. But the increase at 25% level increased the feed
intake. These suggested that rice husk was probably not palatable and not
acceptable to goats when high in a diet.
There
were significant (p<0.05) differences in feed conversion ratio of the goats
under the different diets. Goats on diet B had the least (5.05) while goats on
the control diet A had the highest (8. 37) with those on diet C and D (6.715
and 6.557) respectively. Goats on diet A had the best conversion ratio. This
could be attributed to the low palatability of rice husk, and thereby decreased
their appetite
In
table 3, the significantly higher value of white blood cell recorded for diet
B, A and C could be as a result of the animal possessing a protective system
suggestive of a well adapted immune system (Tambuwal et al., 2002). The value of the while blood cell (WBC) obtained in
this experiment supported the reports of Daramola et al., (2005) that WAD goats possess a protective system providing
a rapid and potent defense against any infective agent and this probably form
the physiological basis for the adaptation of the species to West African
eco-zone which is characterized with high prevalence of diseases. In all the
diets, goats under diet B had the greatest value of WBC and the values decrease
as the level of inclusion of rice husk increases.
The values of
packed cell volume (PCV) obtained for animals on diets B, A and C (20.05, 19.7,
and 19.4) fell between the values reported by Daramola et al., (2005) as normal for West African dwarf goats. However, the
PCV of animal on diet D fell below the range. This could be due to the high
level of the rice husk. Hence, diet B, A and C can be described as diets that
maintain animals on normal PCV value.
The value of red
blood cell noted for animals on the whole diets showed that the goats are not
anemic. The haemoglobin count followed similar trend. The value of red blood
cell and haemoglobin reported could be due probably to the age of the animals
used in this experiment. Tambuwal et al.,
(2002) reported that age has a significant effect on haemoglobin and red blood
cell (that is, the oxygen carrying capacity of blood is higher in adult goats)
since haemoglobin function as a career of oxygen to target organs by forming oxy-haemoglobin
(Harmon, 2006) hence animals on diet B are at advantage
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
The result of
the present study has shown that inclusion of Aspergillus treated rice husk at
25% and 75% Gmelina arborea in the
diet of West African dwarf (W A D) goats had no deleterious effect in their
efficient utilization of the feed hence their performance. This, therefore, suggest
that feeding of Gmelina arborea supplemented
with Aspergillus treated rice husk could be used as an alternative feed for
West African dwarf goats.
REFERENCES
Adu, I.F. and
Ngere, L.O. (1979). Wld. Rev. Anim. Prod. 15:51–62.
Akinsoyinu, A.O.
1974. Studies on protein and energy utilization by the West African dwarf
goats. Ph.D. thesis. University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Aletor V.A., Omodara O.A. (1994).
Studies on some leguminous browse plants with particular reference to their
proximate, mineral and some endogenous anti-nutritional constituents. Anim. Feed Science Technol. 46: 343-348.
Amata I. A and
Bratte L. (2008). The effect of partial replacement of soya bean meal with Gliricidia sepuim leaf meal on the performance and organ
weights of weaner rabbits in the tropics. Asian J. Vet. Adv., 3(3): 169-173.
Amata I.A, Bratte L, Ofuoku A. (2009).
Effect of partial replacement of growers mash with Gliricidia sepium leaf
meal on the growth of Chinchilla rabbits and its implication for extension
advisory services. Afr. J. Livestock
Extension, 7: 60-64.
Amata I.A. (2010). The effect of feeding
Gliricidia sepium leaf meal on the hematological, serological and
carcass characteristics of weaned rabbits in the tropics. Agric. Biol. J. North Am. 1(5): 1057-1060.
Barber, S.(2008). Milled rice and
changes during aging. In D. F. Houston ed. Rice chemistry and Technology.
P215-263 St Paul, MN, USA, Am, Assoc.
Cereal chem.
Belewu, M.A., N.O. Muhammed and B.O.
Ikuomola, 2004. Comparative nutritional evaluation of fungus treated and alkali
treated rice husk by rat. Moor J. Agri.
Res., 2: 129-134.
Best, P. (2006). Ethanol Impact!
Significant transformation of World market for grains. Feed International
August 2006. www.feedindustrynetwork.com pp. 8-9.
Broster, W.H.
1972. Protein requirements of cows for lactation, p. 293. In W.Lenkeit
and K.Breirem, Handbook of animal nutrition,
vol. 2. P.Parey, Hamburg, West Germany.
Carew, B.A.R.,
Mosi A.K., Mba, A.U. and Egbunike, G.N.(1980). The potential of browse plants
in the nutrition of small ruminants in the humid forest and derived savanna
zones of Nigeria. In: le. Houeron H.N.(ed). Browse in Africa. ILCA, Addis Ababa Ethiopia April
8-12 pp 307-311.
D’Mello JPF, Fraser KN (1991). The
composition of leaf meal from Leucaena leucocephata. Trop. Sci., 23: 75-78.
Devendra, C.
(1967b). Studies in the nutrition of the indigenous goat of Malaysia. II. The
requirements for live weight gain. Malays.
Agric. J. 46:98.
Eggeling, I. (1983).Lignin and
exceptional biopolymer and a rich resources. Trends in Biotechnology 1:123-127.
Ewuola, S. O. (1990). Problem of goats
keeping among selected farmers in Ondo State. Journal of Animal Production 10;109-119.
F.A.O. (1982).
Production year book. F.A.O., Rome.
Fashina O. E.,
Ologhogbo A. D., Adeniran, G. A., Ayoade G. O., Adeyemi O.A., Olayode G., and
Olubanjo O. O. (2004). Toxicological assessment of Vernonia amygdaliana leaf meal in the nutrition of broiler starter
chicks. Nig. J. Anim. Prod. 31:3-11.
Fehr, P.M., and
J.Delage. (1973).The effect of energy level of diet on the utilization by goat
mammary gland of acetate as a precursor of fatty acids in milk.) C.R. Acad. Sci. 267D:3449.
Haenlein, G.F.W.
1950. Stoffwechsel und Energiehaushalt der Ziege. (Nutrition and energy
metabolism of goats.) Thesis, University of Hohenheim-Stuttgart, West Germany.
Haenlein, G.F.W.
1980. Mineral nutrition of goats. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1729.
Harmeyer, J.,
and H.Martens. 1980. Aspects of urea metabolism in ruminants with reference to
the goat. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1707.
Hart, E.B.,
H.Steenbock, and C.A.Hoppert. 1921. Dietary factors influencing calcium
assimilation. I. The comparative influence of green and dried plant tissue,
cabbage, orange juice, and cod liver oil on calcium assimilation. J.
Biol. Chem. 48:33.
Hart, E.B.,
H.Steenbock, S.W.Kletzien, and H. Scott. 1927. Dietary factors influencing
calcium assimilation. IX. Further observations on the influence of cod liver
oil on calcium assimilation in lactating animals. J. Biol. Chem. 71:271.
Hemayathy, J and Prabhakar, J. V.
(1987). Lipid composition of rice (oryza sativa L) brain J. Am oil chem. Soc.
64:1016-1019.
Henderson,
J.McA., and H.E.Magee. 1926. The effect of ultra-violet light on the calcium
and phosphorus metabolism of the lactating animal. Biochem. J. 20:363.
Huebner F.R., Bietz J.A., Webb, B.D and
Juliano B.O.,(1990). Rice cultivar identification by high performance liquid
cromatophy of endo-sperm proteins, cereal chem.67:129-135.
Huzukun, S. Takeda, Y., Maruta, N. and
Jaliano, B.O. (1989). Molecular Structures of rice starch. Carbohydrate. Res.
189:227-235.
Itoh, M.,
T.Haryu, R.Tano, and K.Iwasaki. 1979. Maintenance requirements of energy and
protein for castrated Japanese native goats. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 49:1427.
Juliano, B. O., ed. (1999b). rice:
Chemistry and Technology, 2nd ed. St Paul, MN, USA, Am. Assoc.
Cereal Chem. 774pp.
Juliano, B.O. (1985). Factor affecting
nutritional properties of rice protein. Trans. Anfi. Sci. Technol. (Philipp.),
7:205-216.
Juliano, B.O. and Goddard, M.S. (1986).
Cause of varietal differences in insulin and glucose responses to ingested
rice. Qual. Plant foods Hum. Nutr. 36:35-41.
Larbi, A. Jabbar, M. A., Orok. E. J.,
Idiong, N.B and Cobbina, J. (1993). Aichoma Cordifolia, a promising indigenous browse species in southern
Nigeria. Agroforestry systems: 22:38-44.
Lintzel, W., and
O.Radeff. 1931. Iron content and iron retention of newborn and nursing animals.
Arch. Tierern. Tierz. 6:313.
Lowry, J.B. (1995). Deciduous trees: a dry
season feed resources in Australian tropical woodland. Tropical Grasslands 92:13-17.
Mack, S. (1982).
Small ruminant breed productivity in Africa. (Ed. R.M. Gatemby and
J.C.M. Trail), ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Majogaonkar,
S.V., Patil, S.S. and Toro,V.A. (1980). Chemical composition and nutritive
values of Gmelina arborea tree leaves. Indian
journal of Animal Science 57:1235-1236.
Majumdar, B.N.
1960b. Studies on goat nutrition. II. Digestible crude protein requirements for
maintenance from balance studies. J. Agric. Sci. 54:335.
Mecha, I.
and Adegbola, T.A. (1980). Chemical
composition of some southern Nigerian forage eaten by goats. In: le Houeron H.N. (ed). Browse In: African, the
current state of knowledge. ILCA, Addia Ababa Ethiopia.
Miller, W.J.
1981. Biological value of different sources of inorganic trace elements.
Feedstuffs, March 30, p. 20.
Morand-Fehr, P.,
and D.Sauvant. 1980. Composition and yield of goat milk as affected by
nutritional manipulation. J. Dairy Sci. 63:1671.
Mosse, J. (1990). Nitrogen to protein
conversion factors for ten cereals and six legumes or oilseeds. A reappraisal
of its definition and determination. Variation according to species and to seed
protein content, J. Agric food chem.,38:18-24.
National
Research Council. 1975. Nutrient requirements of sheep. 5th rev. ed. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National
Research Council. 1978. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 5th rev. ed.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Obi I. U.
(2001). Introduction to factorial experiment for Agriculture, Biological and
Social sciences research (2nd ed.). Optimal international Ltd Agbani
Enugu, Nigeria vii 92 pp.
Ogawa M.,Kumamaru T., Satoh H., Iwata
N., Kasai Z. and Tanaka, K. (1987). Purification seed and its polypeptide
composition. Plant cell physio 1., 28:1517-1527.
Okagbare GO, Akpodiete OJ, Esiekpe O,
Onagbesan OM (2004). Evaluation of Gmelina arborea leaves supplemented
with grasses (Pennisetum purpureum) as feed for West African dwarf
goats. Trop. Health Anim. Prod., 36:593-598.
Okello, K.L. and Obwolo, M.J.(1985). Wid.
Anim. Rev. 53: 27–32.
Onwuka C.F.I.,
Akinsoyinu A.O., and Tewe O.O. (1989). Reed value of some Nigerian browse
plants: chemical composition and “in-vitro” digestibility of leaves. East
Afri. Agric. For J., 54(3): 157-163.
Opasina, B.A.
(1984). Disease constraints on productivity of village goats in south west
Nigeria. Humid zone Programme document No. 5. ILCA, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Otchere, E.O.,
Ahmed, H.U., Adesipe, Y.M., Kallah, M.S., Mzamane, N. and others, (1985). Livestock
production among pastoralists in Giwa District, Kaduna State, Nigeria.
Unpublished mimeo. Livestock Systems Research Project, NAPRI, Shika, Zaria,
Nigeria.
Otsyina, R.M.,
McKell, C.M.(1985). Browse in the nutrition of livestock. World Animal Rev.
53:33-39.
Perkins, A.E.
(1957). The effect of rations excessively high and extremely low in protein
content on dairy cows. Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 799.
Platt, B.S.,
C.R.C.Heard, and R.J.Stewart (1964). Experimental protein-calorie deficiency,
p. 445. In H.N.Munro, Mammalian protein metabolism, vol. 2. Academic
Press, New York.
Preston, R.L.
(1972). Protein requirements for growing and lactating ruminants. Proc. Univ.
Nottingham Nutr. Conf.
Rajpoot, R.L.
(1979). Energy and protein in goat nutrition. Ph.D. thesis. Raja Balwant Singh
College, Bichpuri (Agra), India.
Sachdeva, K.K.,
O.P.S.Sengar, S.N.Singh, and I.L.Lindahl. (1973). Studies on goats. I. Effect
of plane of nutrition on the reproductive performance of does. J.
Agric. Sci., Cambridge 80:375.
Satter, L.D.,
and R.E.Roffler. (1975). Nitrogen requirements and utilization in dairy cattle.
J.
Dairy Sci. 58:1219.
Sengar, O.P.S.
(1980). Indian research on protein and energy requirements of goats. J.
Dairy Sci. 63:1655.
Sera, A.B.,
Sera, S.D., Orden, E.A., Cruz, L.C. and Fujihara, T. (1995). Multi purpose tree
leaves and fruits in the diets of small-scale ruminants during the dry season
in the Philippines. In: sustainable small
scale Ruminant production in semi arid and sub-humid Tropical Areas.
Editors: Becker, K., Lawrence, P. and
Orskov, B. university of Hohenhein-480,
Stuttgart, Germany pp.91-97.
Shoo, R.A.
(1986). A comparative study of rough utilization and growth performance between
sheep and goats supplemented with diff. levels of leucanenan leucocephala. Msc.
Thesis Sokoine University of Agriculture. Morogoro.
Singh, S.N., and
O.P.S.Sengar. 1970. Investigation on milk and meat potentialities of Indian
goats, 1965–70. Final Techn. Report Project A7-AH-18. Raja Balwant Singh
College, Bichpuri (Agra), India.
Steel R. G. D.,
and Torrie J. H (1980). Principles and procedure of statistics (2nd
ed.) with special references to the biological special malicious Hill book co.
New York.
Taira H. and Fuji K.(1979). Influence of
cropping season on lipid content and fatty acid composition of lowland non
glutinous brown rice. Nippon sakamotsu Gakkai kiji, 48:371-377.
Takeda Y., Hizukun, S. and Juliano,
B.O.(1987). Structures of rice amylopectin with low and high affinities for
Iodine, carbohydrate Res., 168:78-88.
Williamson, G.
and Payne, W.J.A. (1978). An introduction to animal husbandry in the
tropics. The English Language Book Society and Longmans, London.
Wilson, J.R.
(1990). The eleventh hypothesis: shade Agroforestry today 2: 14-15.
Wilson, R.T.
(1985). Wid. Anim. Rev. 53: 8–14.
Winter, J., and
R.Goersch. 1974. Ziegen als Versuchstiere. Ein Beitrag zur Fuetterungsoptimierung.
(Goats as experimental animals. A contribution to feeding optimization.) Z.
Versuchstierkd. 16:256.
APPENDIX
I
INITIAL
AVERAGE BODY WEIGHT (kg)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
6.00
|
5.98
|
6.30
|
6.00
|
2
|
6.20
|
6.13
|
5.90
|
5.90
|
3
|
5.90
|
6.20
|
6.00
|
5.98
|
Total
|
18.10
|
18.31
|
18.20
|
17.88
|
Mean
|
6.03
|
6.10
|
6.07
|
5.96
|
1. CFM = =
CFM = 437.9
2. Treatment sum of squares (SSt)
- CFM
- 437.9
SSt = 0.0335
3. Total sum of squares (TSS)
- CFM
TSS = 0.1977
4. Error sum of square
= TSS
- SSt
= 0.1977-0.0335
= 0.164
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
d/f
|
SS
|
MS
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
0.0335
|
0.011
|
0.537
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.1642
|
0.0205
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
0.1977
|
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05)
MEAN
SEPARATION
LSD = ta x sd = 2(s2) = 0.27
Sqare
root r
5.96
|
6.03
|
6.07
|
6.10
|
|
6.10
|
0.14NS
|
0.07NS
|
0.03NS
|
0
|
6.07
|
0.11NS
|
0.04NS
|
0
|
|
6.03
|
0.07NS
|
0
|
||
5.96
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
II
AVERAGE
FINAL LIVE-WEIGHT (KG)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
7.15
|
7.69
|
7.30
|
6.96
|
2
|
7.21
|
7.83
|
7.07
|
6.86
|
3
|
7.00
|
7.79
|
7.14
|
6.92
|
Total
|
21.36
|
23.31
|
21.51
|
20.74
|
Mean
|
7.12
|
7.77
|
7.17
|
6.91
|
1. CFM =
2.
3. Treatment sum of square =-
=
=
=
4 Error sum of squares
TSS – SSt
1.288 – 1.221
= 0.067
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
d/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
1.221
|
0.407
|
48.452
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.67
|
0.0084
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
1.288
|
Highly
significant (p<0.05)
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD
= 2.306 x 2(0.084)
3
LSD = 0.172
6.91
|
7.12
|
7.17
|
7.77
|
|
7.77
|
1.86*
|
0.65*
|
0.6*
|
0
|
7.17
|
0.26*
|
0.05NS
|
0
|
|
7.12
|
0.21*
|
0
|
||
6.91
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
III
AVERAGE
WEIGHT GAIN (KG)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
1.15
|
1.71
|
1.00
|
0.96
|
2
|
0.91
|
1.70
|
1.17
|
0.96
|
3
|
1.10
|
1.59
|
1.14
|
0.94
|
Total
|
3.16
|
5.00
|
3.31
|
2.86
|
Mean
|
1.053
|
1.67
|
1.103
|
0.953
|
1. CFM =
CFM = 17.112
2. Total sum of squares (TSS)
=
= 18.098
– 17.112
= 0.986
3. Treatment sum of square
=
= 18.04
– 17.112
= 0.928
4. Error sum of squares
Tss - SSt = 0.986 -0.928
=
0.058
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
d/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
0.928
|
0.309
|
42.621
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.058
|
0.00725
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
0.986
|
Highly
significant (p<0.05)
MEANS
SEPARATION
LSD = td x sd
2.306
x 2(0.00725) = 0.160
3
0.953
|
1.053
|
1.103
|
1.67
|
|
1.67
|
0.717*
|
0.617*
|
0.567*
|
0
|
1.103
|
0.15NS
|
0.05NS
|
0
|
|
1.053
|
0.1NS
|
0
|
||
0.953
|
0
|
1.67 1.103 1.05
APPENDIX
IV
AVERAGE
WEAKLY WEIGHT GAIN (KG)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
0.144
|
0.214
|
0.125
|
0.120
|
2
|
0.114
|
0.213
|
0.146
|
0.120
|
3
|
0.140
|
0.199
|
0.143
|
0.118
|
Total
|
0.398
|
0.626
|
0.414
|
0.358
|
Mean
|
0.133
|
0.209
|
0.138
|
0.119
|
1. CFM =
= 0.269
2. Total
sum of squares (TSS)
TSS =
= 0.1442+0.2142+….+0.1182 _
= 0.284-0.269 = 0.0152
3. Treatment
sum of square (SSt)
SST
=
=
= 0.01428
4. Error
sum of square (SSE)
SSE = TSS
– SSt
= 0.0152 - 0.0143 =
0.0009
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
0.0143
|
0.0048
|
42.478
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.0009
|
0.000113
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
0.015
|
Highly
significant (p<0.05)
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD = 2.306
x 2(0.000113)
3
LSD = 0.02
0.119
|
0.133
|
0.138
|
0.209
|
|
0.209
|
0.09*
|
0.076*
|
0.071*
|
0
|
0.138
|
0.014NS
|
0.005NS
|
0
|
|
0.133
|
0.019NS
|
0
|
||
0.119
|
0
|
0.209 0.138 0.133 0.119
APPENDIX
V
AVERAGE
DAILY WEIGHT GAIN (KG)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
0.021
|
0.031
|
0.018
|
0.017
|
2
|
0.016
|
0.030
|
0.021
|
0.017
|
3
|
0.02
|
0.028
|
0.020
|
0.019
|
Total
|
0.057
|
0.089
|
0.059
|
0.053
|
Mean
|
0.019
|
0.030
|
0.020
|
0.018
|
1. CFM =
CFM = 0.0055
2.
Total sum of squares (TSS)
TSS = 0.0058 – 0.0055
= 0.00035
3. Treatment
sum of square (SST)
SST =
=
= 0.00032
4. Error
sum of squares (SSE)
SSE = TSS - SST
= 0.000.35 – 0.00032
= 0.00003
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
0.00032
|
0.00011
|
29.33
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.00003
|
0.0000375
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
0.00035
|
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD = 2.306
x 2(0.00000375)
3
LSD = 0.0086
0.018
|
0.019
|
0.020
|
0.030
|
|
0.030
|
0.012*
|
0.011*
|
0.01*
|
0
|
0.020
|
0.002NS
|
0.001NS
|
0
|
|
0.019
|
0.001
|
0
|
||
0.018
|
0
|
0.030 0.020 0.019 0.018
APPENDIX
VI
AVERAGE
WEEKLY FEED IN TAKE (KG)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
1.06
|
1.09
|
0.91
|
0.78
|
2
|
1.04
|
1.09
|
0.90
|
0.81
|
3
|
1.07
|
1.08
|
0.90
|
0.81
|
Total
|
3.17
|
3.26
|
2.71
|
2.40
|
Mean
|
1.06
|
1.09
|
0.90
|
0.80
|
1. CFM =
=
2. Total
sum of square (TSS)
TSS =
= 11.2614 – 11.0976
= 0.1638
3. Treatment
sum of squares (SSt)
SST =
= 11.2602 – 11.0976
= 0.163
4. Error
sum of squares (SSE)
SSE = TSS – SSt
0.1638
- 0.163
= 0.008
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
0.163
|
0.0543
|
543
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.0008
|
0.0001
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
0.638
|
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD = 2.306
x 2(0.0001)
3
LSD = 0.0188
0.80
|
0.90
|
1.06
|
1.09
|
|
1.09
|
0.29*
|
0.19*
|
0.03*
|
0
|
1.06
|
0.26*
|
0.16*
|
0
|
|
0.90
|
0.1*
|
0
|
||
0.80
|
0
|
0.09 0.06 0.90 0.80
APPENDIX
VII
AVERAGE
DAILY FEED INTAKE (KG)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
0.151
|
0.156
|
0.130
|
0.111
|
2
|
0.149
|
0.156
|
0.129
|
0.116
|
3
|
0.153
|
0.154
|
0.129
|
0.116
|
Total
|
0.453
|
0.466
|
0.388
|
0.343
|
Mean
|
0.151
|
0.155
|
0.129
|
0.114
|
1. CFM =
= 0.227
2. Total
sum of square (TSS)
TSS =
= 0.230-0.227 =
0.00321
3. Treatment
sum of squares (SST)
SSt =
=
0.230
- 0.227 = 0.00319
= 0.00002
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
0.000319
|
0.0011
|
440
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.00002
|
0.0000025
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
0.00321
|
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD
= 2.306 x 2(0.0000025)
3
LSD = 0.00298
0.114
|
0.129
|
0.151
|
0.155
|
|
0.155
|
0.041*
|
0.026*
|
0.0004NS
|
0
|
0.151
|
0.037*
|
0.0022NS
|
0
|
|
0.129
|
0.015
|
0
|
||
0.114
|
0
|
|
|
|
b c c
APPENDIX
VIII
FEED
CONVERSION RATIO
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
7.58
|
4.93
|
7.246
|
6.536
|
2
|
9.62
|
4.878
|
6.135
|
6.711
|
3
|
7.87
|
5.348
|
6.289
|
6.897
|
Total
|
25.07
|
15.156
|
19.67
|
26.144
|
Mean
|
8.37
|
5.052
|
6.557
|
6.715
|
1. CFM =
=
2. Total
sum of squares (TSS)
TSS =
= 553.658 – 538.867
= 19.791
3. Treatment
sum of squares (SST)
SSt =
= 550.299 – 533.867
= 16.432
4. Error
sum of squares (SSE)
SSE = TSS-SSt
SSE = 19.791-16.432
= 3.359
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
16.432
|
5.477
|
13.044
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
3.359
|
6.4199
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
19.791
|
MEAN SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD = 2.306
x 2(0.4199)
3
LSD = 0.65
5.052
|
6.557
|
6.715
|
8.37
|
|
8.37
|
3.318*
|
1.813*
|
1.655*
|
0
|
6.715
|
1.663*
|
0.158NS
|
0
|
|
6.557
|
0.505
|
0
|
||
5.052
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
IX
PACKED
CELL VOLUME (PCV)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
19.7
|
21.0
|
20.3
|
18.6
|
2
|
19.5
|
20.5
|
18.3
|
18.0
|
3
|
19.9
|
20.0
|
19.6
|
19.3
|
Total
|
59.1
|
61.5
|
58.2
|
55.9
|
Mean
|
19.7
|
20.5
|
19.4
|
18.6
|
1. CFM =
=
2. Total
sum of squares (TTS)
TSS =
4599.19
- 4590.34
= 8.85
3. Treatment
sum of squares (SSt)
SSt =
= 4595.7
- 4590.34
= 5,36
4. Error
sum of squares (SSE)
SSE = 4595.7 -
4590.34
= 3.49
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
5.36
|
1.787
|
4.06
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
3.49
|
0.44
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
8.85
|
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD
= 2.306 x 2(0.44)
3
LSD = 1.25
18.6
|
19.4
|
19.7
|
20.5
|
|
20.5
|
1.9*
|
1.1NS
|
0.8NS
|
0
|
19.7
|
1.1NS
|
0.3NS
|
0
|
|
19.4
|
0.8NS
|
0
|
||
18.6
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
X
WHITE
BLOOD CELL (WBC)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
4.3
|
4.6
|
3.9
|
3.5
|
2
|
4.7
|
4.3
|
4.3
|
3.8
|
3
|
4.3
|
4.7
|
4.1
|
4.3
|
Total
|
13.3
|
13.6
|
12.3
|
11.6
|
Mean
|
4.4
|
4.5
|
4.1
|
3.9
|
1. CFM =
= = 214.21
2. Total
Sum of squares (TSS)
TSS =
= 216.5
- 214.21
= 2.29
3. Treatment
sum of squares (SST)
SST =
= 215.9
- 214.21
= 1.69
4. Error
sum of squares (SSE)
SSE = TSS - SSt
SSE = 2.29 - 1.69
= 0.6
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
1.69
|
0.56
|
7.47
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.6
|
0.075
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
2.29
|
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD
= 2.306 x 2(0.075)
3
LSD = 0.52
3.86
|
4.1
|
4.4
|
4.5
|
|
20.5
|
0.64*
|
0.4NS
|
0.1NS
|
0
|
19.7
|
O.54*
|
0.3NS
|
0
|
|
19.4
|
0.24NS
|
0
|
||
18.6
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
APPENDIX
Xi
HAEMOGLOBIN
CONCENTRATION
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
5.9
|
6.03
|
5.7
|
4.9
|
2
|
5.8
|
6.09
|
5.8
|
4.8
|
3
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
5.7
|
5.0
|
Total
|
17.7
|
18.12
|
17.2
|
14.7
|
Mean
|
5.9
|
6.04
|
5.7
|
4.9
|
1. CFM
=
= 382.167
2. Total
sum of squares (TSS)
TSS =
= 384.569 - 382.167
= 2.403
3. Treatment
sum of squares (SSt)
SSt =
= 384.518
-382.167
= 2.351
4. Error
sum of Square (SSE)
SSE = TSS - SSE
= 2.403
- 2.35
= 0.052
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
106.888
|
35.63
|
5567.05
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.051
|
0.0064
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
106.939
|
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
2.306 x 2(0.0064)
3
LSD = 0.151
4.9
|
5.7
|
5.9
|
6.04
|
|
6.04
|
1.14*
|
0.34*
|
0.14
|
0
|
5.9
|
1.6*
|
0.2*
|
0
|
|
5.7
|
1.8*
|
0
|
||
4.9
|
0.
|
|
|
|
c c
APPENDIX
ix
RED
BLOOD CELL (RBC)
REP
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
1
|
5.5
|
6.09
|
5.2
|
4.75
|
2
|
5.4
|
6.10
|
5.4
|
4.65
|
3
|
5.4
|
6.09
|
5.6
|
4.8
|
Total
|
16.3
|
18.28
|
16.2
|
14.2
|
Mean
|
5.4
|
6.09
|
1.4
|
4.7
|
1. CFM =
= 351.87
2. Total
sum of squares (TSS)
TSS =
= 354.74
- 351.87
= 2.87
3.
Treatment sum of sum of
squares (SSt)
SSt =
=
= 2.77
4. Error
sum of squares (SSE)
SSE = TSS - SSE
= 2.87
- 2.77
= 0.1
ANOVA
TABLE
Source of variance
|
D/f
|
Ss
|
Ms
|
F-cal
|
F-tab 5%
|
1%
|
Treatment
|
3
|
2.77
|
0.923
|
73.84
|
4.07
|
7.59
|
Error
|
8
|
0.1
|
0.0125
|
|||
Total
|
11
|
2.87
|
MEAN
SEPERATION
LSD = ta
x sd
Sd = 2(s2)
r
LSD
= 2.306 x 2(0.0125)
3
LSD = 0.21
4.7
|
5.4
|
5.4
|
6.09
|
|
6.09
|
1.39*
|
0.69*
|
0.69*
|
0
|
5.4
|
0.7*
|
0
|
0
|
|
5.4
|
0.7*
|
0
|
||
4.7
|
0
|
|
|
|
|