207
ferences among treatment means, Fisher’s protected least significant difference
(LSD) test was used to test and locate the treatment means that were significantly
different from each other. The model used was as follows:
Y ij
i
i j
= + +
µ τ ε
where
Y ij denotes the growth response (broiler performance)
μ is the overall mean
τ i is the effect of the ith replacement level (diet) or treatment (i = 1, 2, 3, 4)
ε ij is the random and independent errors
3 Results
3.1 Nutrient Composition of Pearl Millet and Maize
The results on nutrient composition of pearl millet, maize, and soybean were presented in Table 1. The results showed that pearl millet was superior to maize in
terms of crude protein, calcium, ether extract (fat), energy content, and crude fiber.
3.2 Effects of Different Pearl Millet Inclusion Levels
on Growth Performance of Broilers
Table 3 shows the effects of pearl millet inclusion levels on performance of broilers
from 1 to 8 weeks of age. The results show that there were no significant differences
(P < 0.05) on the feed intake and weight gain of broilers fed either pearl millet or
maize-based diet. However, the body weight gain of broilers fed the diet at 10%
pearl millet inclusion level was higher than that of the other three treatments. The
feed conversion ratios (FCR) for 10% and 20% inclusion levels were better than
broilers fed diets where only maize (T1) or pearl millet (T4) was the sole energy
feed ingredient used in the basal diet.
3.3 Effect of Different Pearl Millet Inclusion Levels
on Carcass Characteristics of Broilers
The results in Table 4 show that different pearl millet inclusion levels had no significant (P < 0.05) effect on carcass characteristics of broilers. However, the relative
values of carcass weight and dressing percentage were higher for the broilers fed
10% pearl millet-based diets.
In Search of Climate-Smart Feeds: The Potential of Pearl Millet
ferences among treatment means, Fisher’s protected least significant difference
(LSD) test was used to test and locate the treatment means that were significantly
different from each other. The model used was as follows:
Y ij
i
i j
= + +
µ τ ε
where
Y ij denotes the growth response (broiler performance)
μ is the overall mean
τ i is the effect of the ith replacement level (diet) or treatment (i = 1, 2, 3, 4)
ε ij is the random and independent errors
3 Results
3.1 Nutrient Composition of Pearl Millet and Maize
The results on nutrient composition of pearl millet, maize, and soybean were presented in Table 1. The results showed that pearl millet was superior to maize in
terms of crude protein, calcium, ether extract (fat), energy content, and crude fiber.
3.2 Effects of Different Pearl Millet Inclusion Levels
on Growth Performance of Broilers
Table 3 shows the effects of pearl millet inclusion levels on performance of broilers
from 1 to 8 weeks of age. The results show that there were no significant differences
(P < 0.05) on the feed intake and weight gain of broilers fed either pearl millet or
maize-based diet. However, the body weight gain of broilers fed the diet at 10%
pearl millet inclusion level was higher than that of the other three treatments. The
feed conversion ratios (FCR) for 10% and 20% inclusion levels were better than
broilers fed diets where only maize (T1) or pearl millet (T4) was the sole energy
feed ingredient used in the basal diet.
3.3 Effect of Different Pearl Millet Inclusion Levels
on Carcass Characteristics of Broilers
The results in Table 4 show that different pearl millet inclusion levels had no significant (P < 0.05) effect on carcass characteristics of broilers. However, the relative
values of carcass weight and dressing percentage were higher for the broilers fed
10% pearl millet-based diets.
In Search of Climate-Smart Feeds: The Potential of Pearl Millet