Sustainable poultry farming in developing nations: Exploring cassava waste utilization for enhanced poultry production and economic viability
Abstract
In intensive poultry production, particularly in developing countries like Nigeria, addressing the issues of agricultural waste and feed costs for farmers is crucial. This study explores a solution by incorporating cassava waste into broiler chicken diets. The research examines its effects on economic factors, growth performance, carcass yield, and agricultural waste utilization over 8 weeks. Three hundred broiler chickens were divided into three groups: a control group without cassava waste and two treatment groups with 10% and 15% cassava waste inclusion. Results showed that a 10% inclusion improved key performance indicators such as weight gain, feed intake, feed conversion ratio, and carcass weight, while a 15% inclusion was less efficient than the control. Economically, diets with 10% and 15% cassava tuber waste were more cost-effective than the control, emphasizing the economic benefits of cassava-based diets for broiler chickens, and offering a sustainable, cost-efficient feeding option for poultry farmers.
INTRODUCTION
Investigating alternative feed materials in animal husbandry is crucial for improving food production efficiency, reducing the cost of production, and meeting the protein and energy requirements of poultry and livestock. Rapid-growing poultry species like broiler chickens offer advantages, particularly in small-scale subsistence farming, where cassava waste shows promise as a substitute feedstuff. Cassava, a perennial woody shrub, is a resilient crop well-suited to tropical and subtropical regions, especially in developing nations [1]. Despite cassava's abundance, only 6% of the annual production is utilized in Africa [2]. Nigeria leads global cassava production with over 34 million tonnes annually [3]. Cassava has been studied as an alternative energy source in poultry diets [4]. It is composed of roughly 60%–70% starch content on a dry basis, presented in granular form [5], along with lignocellulose components such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin and other various secondary constituents [6-10]. Cassava peel, however, remains underutilized due to its high fiber and hydrocyanic acid content [11]. Various processing methods have been explored to reduce anti-nutritional factors in cassava such as sun drying and soaking. Utilizing cassava waste can reduce the waste generated by cassava plantations. Therefore, efforts are underway to explore these lignocellulosic materials and other plant by-products as alternative feedstuff in animal production [12]. For example, plant by-products like jackfruit seedmeal and yam tuber waste meal have been found to improve growth performance and economic benefits in poultry [13, 14]. This current study aims to evaluate the impact of varying levels of cassava waste meal on broiler production, focusing on economic benefits, growth performance, and carcass characteristics. It seeks to provide insights into cassava waste meal's potential as a broiler feed ingredient, addressing both economic and environmental considerations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
| Ingredients | T1 (0%) | T2 (10%) | T3 (15%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maize | 50.00 | 40.00 | 35.00 |
| Cassava tuber waste meal | 0 | 10.00 | 15.00 |
| Soybean | 25.00 | 25.00 | 25.00 |
| Palm kernel cake | 10.85 | 10.85 | 10.85 |
| Wheat offal | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
| Bone meal | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| Limestone | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 |
| Vitamin/Premixa | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Salt | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| Lysine | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| Methionine | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Calculated proximate composition | |||
| Crude protein (%) | 20.59 | 21.00 | 21.01 |
| Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) | 3047.63 | 3022.63 | 2884.53 |
| Calcium (%) | 1.99 | 2.01 | 2.02 |
| Phosphorus (%) | 2.61 | 2.60 | 2.20 |
| Crude fiber (%) | 4.75 | 5.05 | 5.15 |
| Crude fat (%) | 1.30 | 1.35 | 2.55 |
- aVitamin/mineral premix (Afrimash) (2.5 kg) used for this study contained Vitamin A (12,000,000.0 IU); Vit. D3 (2,250,000 IU); Vit. E (25,000 mg); Vit. K3 (2000 mg); Folic acid (1000 mg); Niacin (40,000 mg); Calpan (10,000 mg); Vit. B2 (6000 mg); Vit. B12 (15.00 mg); Vit. B1 (2100.00 mg); Vit. B6 (3000.00 mg); Vitamin C (45,000 mg), Biotin (100.00 mg); Antioxidant (1250.00 mg); Cobalt (200 mg); Selenium (200 mg); Iodine (1000 mg); Iron (20,000 mg), Manganese (40,000 mg), Copper (3000 mg); Zinc (30,000 mg), Choline Chloride (300,000 mg), Antioxidant (1250.00 mg).
A completely randomized design was used for the experiment, and statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS (version 29.0.1.0). Data collected on growth performance, carcass, and economics of production were subjected to one-way analysis of variance, and Duncan's multiple range test was used to detect significant differences among means (p < 0.05).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study investigated the influence of cassava waste meal on broiler chicken, as detailed in Table 2. Significant differences were observed in final body weights among the different diets (p < 0.05). Diet 2 resulted in the highest final weight (2400.0 g), followed by Diet 1 (2200.40 g), while Diet 3 exhibited the lowest (2085.65 g). Weight gain also significantly differed (p < 0.05), with Diet 2 achieving the highest gain (2351.55 g), followed by Diet 1 (2151.85 g) and Diet 3 (2037.15 g). The PER varied (p < 0.05), with Diet 2 achieving the highest PER (2.57). Diet 2 also demonstrated the best feed conversion ratio (FCR) at 1.86 revealing that protein was best converted into meat by group 2. Feed intake remained consistent, suggesting cassava waste adequately met nutritional requirements. Sun drying likely reduced cyanide levels and improved digestibility [18, 19]. The utilization of cassava waste at a 15% level was observed to be less efficient compared to the control, potentially attributed to the elevated dietary fiber content in the cassava waste, reduced maize contents, and anti-nutritional factors at this level. This outcome is consistent with the findings of [20, 21], who postulated that heightened dietary fiber levels in monogastric animal diets could negatively impact weight gain. In a recent study [22], it was determined that incorporating processed cassava peel-leaf blend as a maize substitute in pig diets did not significantly influence their performance. Furthermore, the diminished weight gain observed with higher levels of cassava waste by-products in the diets may be associated with the potential formation of cyanide bonds, which could be complex with certain nutrients, hindering nutrient absorption and the complete utilization of the diets [23]. The findings by [20, 24] also noted reduced feed intake and growth in starter and finishing broilers when 30% of dietary maize was substituted with cassava meal. Interestingly, it is observed that the inclusion of 160 g/kg fermented cassava pulp did not adversely affect the growth, nutrient digestibility and rentention, or carcass quality of broiler chickens but levels up to 200 g/kg fermented cassava pulp reduced their growth, feed intake, possibly due to gastrointestinal limitations [25]. Furthermore, cassava waste meal can replace up to 10% of maize in broiler diets without adverse effects on weight gain, daily intake, or feed conversion. Beyond 10%, performance may decline according to [26]. The result of this research aligns with the findings of Iheukwumere et al. [27], who reported a decline in broiler finisher chicken growth when dietary cassava leaf meal exceeded 10%. A study by [28] found that 10% cassava waste inclusion in broiler finisher chicken diet is suitable.
The carcass of broiler chickens administered cassava waste meal revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) in live weight, dressed weight, and slaughter weight among treatment groups. Dressing percentage, however, did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) across groups. Diet 2 resulted in the highest live weight (2400.00 g), outperforming the control group (2200.40 g), while Diet 3 had the lowest (1985.65 g). Diet 2 also yielded the highest dressed weight (1845.55 g), surpassing Diets 1 (1692.94 g) and 3 (1610.44 g). Dressed weight, being more relevant for consumers, reflects actual saleable meat aligning with previous findings [29]. This indicates that improved weight gain by diet 2 may be attributed to the fact that cassava waste meal with adequate fibre containing diet, promoted tissue growth and limited fat accumulation. The 10% dietary level appears optimal for cassava waste meal inclusion in broiler diets, supporting previous findings [30]. Exceeding 10% can reduce carcass weight [31] due to elevated fiber and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) content, with tolerable HCN levels not exceeding 50 ppm. Processing techniques are vital to address HCN levels in cassava, especially the roots. Enzyme supplementation can overcome challenges posed by low protein, low energy, and complex structures in cassava meal. The nonsignificant impact of cassava treatments on dressing percentage aligns with previous studies [4, 32].
The economic analysis of broiler chicken production, with varying cassava waste meal levels in the diets, showed significant differences in multiple key parameters (p < 0.05). Notably, Diet 1 had the highest cost per kg of feed (₦187.20), followed by Diet 2 (₦163.32), while Diet 3 incurred the least cost (₦150.21) per kg of feed for broiler chickens. Similarly, Diet 1 had the highest cost of feed consumed (₦823.45), followed by Diet 2 (₦717.49), with Diet 3 having the lowest cost (₦656.11). Regarding the cost per kg of weight gained, Diets 2 (₦303.77) and 3 (₦362.01) exhibited significantly lower values (p < 0.05) compared to Diet 1 (₦381.88). Revenue from Diet 2 (₦3000.0) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than Diet 1 (₦2750.50) and Diet 3 (₦2607.00). Gross margin analysis revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) among the diets, with Diet 3 showing the best profitability. Also, an optimal dressing percentage (80%–84%) aligns with observation for maximizing profits revealing Diet 3 as the most economically viable group [29]. The inclusion of cassava waste meal, particularly at 10%–15% levels, enhanced revenues, reduced feed costs, and improved weight gain as shown in Figure 1. Cassava waste meal is economically viable as an alternative ingredient due to its lower cost and availability, making it suitable for up to 15% inclusion in broiler chicken diets. This sustainable approach aligns with previous studies on plant waste utilization in poultry diets, such as yam waste and jackfruit seedmeal, which increased profitability, growth, and reduced agricultural waste [13, 14]. The cost-effectiveness and nutritional value of plant waste as feed ingredients offer the potential for reducing feed costs and addressing environmental concerns. Optimizing plant waste use in poultry diets can enhance economic efficiency and sustainability in poultry production while utilizing agricultural by-products.
| Parameters | Control(T1) | CW 10%(T2) | CW 15%(T3) | SEM | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Growth performance of broiler chickens fed cassava tuber waste meal | |||||
| Initial weight (g/bird) | 48.55 | 48.45 | 48.50 | 1.33 | 0.081 |
| Final weight (g/bird) | 2200.40b | 2400.00a | 2085.65c | 10.00 | <0.001 |
| Weight gain (g/bird) | 2151.85b | 2351.55a | 2037.15c | 4.38 | <0.001 |
| Daily weight gain (g/bird) | 38.42b | 41.98a | 36.37c | 2.66 | <0.001 |
| Daily feed intake (g/bird) | 78.55 | 78.45 | 78.00 | 3.94 | 0.166 |
| Protein efficiency ratio (g/bird) | 2.31b | 2.57a | 2.13c | 0.90 | <0.001 |
| FCR | 2.04a | 1.86b | 2.41a | 1.00 | <0.001 |
| Carcass characteristics of broiler chickens fed cassava tuber waste meal | |||||
| Live weight (g/bird) | 2098.10b | 2037.00a | 1985.65c | 11.36 | 0.011 |
| Slaughter weight (g/bird) | 1992.56b | 2095.65a | 1800.00b | 11.23 | 0.008 |
| Dressed weight (g/bird) | 1692.94b | 1845.55a | 1610.44b | 11.22 | <0.001 |
| Percentage dressed weight (%) | 76.93 | 76.89 | 81.10 | 3.11 | 0.176 |
| Cost analysis of broiler chickens fed different levels of cassava tuber waste meal diets | |||||
| Cost/kg live weight of bird (₦/kg) | 1250.00 | 1250.00 | 1250.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Cost/kg of feed (₦/kg) | 187.20a | 163.32b | 150.21c | 9.31 | <0.001 |
| Cost of feed consumed (₦) | 823.45a | 717.49b | 656.11c | 6.92 | <0.001 |
| Cost/kg weight gained (₦/kg) | 381.88a | 303.77b | 362.01b | 2.10 | <0.001 |
| Cost of production (₦) | 1323.45 | 1217.49 | 1150.11 | 5.63 | 0.093 |
| Revenue (₦) | 2750.50b | 3000.00a | 2607.00c | 7.09 | 0.009 |
| Gross margin (₦) | 1427.05b | 1782.51a | 1450.95b | 6.22 | <0.001 |
- Note: Means within the same row with different superscripts (a–c) are significantly different (p < 0.05).
- Abbreviations: CW, cassava waste; FCR, feed conversion ratio; SEM, standard error of mean.
The incorporation of cassava wastes (broken tubers, leaves, and peels) at various inclusion levels in broiler diets, as implemented in this research, resulted in enhanced growth, improved carcass quality, and increased profitability.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Incorporating cassava waste meal at a 10% inclusion rate in broiler chicken diets improved weight gain, feed intake, feed conversion, and carcass weight. Lower inclusion rates are favorable for broiler performance, as 15% inclusion led to reduced efficiency. Despite this, the study recommends replacing maize with cassava waste meal, with inclusion rates up to 15%, supporting economic viability and poultry performance. Careful optimization of inclusion rates balances these benefits for sustainable and efficient poultry production.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
This work was carried out in collaboration with all other authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript for submission. Izuchukwu Martin Aroh: Writing – original draft (lead); writing – review & editing (lead); visualisation of data (lead). Agida Christopher Agboje: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (lead); project administration (equal); supervision (equal); validation (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Goodness N. Ogbonna: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (supporting); funding acquisition (supporting); methodology (supporting); resources (lead). Samuel Onyedikachi Anyanka: Conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (supporting); methodology (equal); resources (equal). Benjamin P. Macartan: Writing – review & editing (supporting); visualisation of data (supporting). Helen Amara Ohanehi: Writing – review & editing (supporting). Nnamdi Mbanefo Anigbogu: Conceptualization (lead); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (lead); resources (equal); supervision (lead); validation (equal); writing – review & editing (supporting).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors and researchers involved in the research and the production of this article express their gratitude to the staff, students, and technicians at Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Nigeria, for their valuable assistance and the conducive working environment they provided. Also, thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. This research did not receive any external funding, and the icons used to create figure 1 were downloaded from biorender.com.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
ETHICS STATEMENT
The Department of Animal Welfare and Nutrition Committee at Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Nigeria, reviewed and approved the feeding trial. All the researchers involved in this project ensured compliance with the committee's guidelines, and this research paper has not been submitted elsewhere for consideration.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All data used for this study is available and can be provided upon reasonable request.
