Growth and Laying Performance of Local Guinea Fowl on Different Dietary Protein and Energy Levels

Abstract

Constraints to Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) production include poor growth and low laying performance. However, the lack of standard nutritional requirements significantly hinders commercial indigenous Guinea fowl production in Nigeria. This study aimed to determine the proper levels of crude protein (14, 16, and 18%) and metabolizable energy (2.65, 2.75, and 2.85 Mcal/kg) in the diets of native Guinea fowl in Nigeria. The dietary protein (PL) and energy (EL) levels for the fowl were evaluated in a completely randomized 3 (PL) × 3 (EL) factorial design with three replicates of 10 birds each. Thus, 270 birds with 20 weeks of age were allocated randomly to nine dietary treatments (18P:2.65E, 18P:2.75E, 18P:2.85E, 16P:2.65E, 16P:2.75E, 16P:2.85E, 14P:2.65E, 14P:2.75E and 14P:2.85E). The PL × EL interaction affected Guinea fowl's DFI, DWG, and WWG (p<0.05), while WFI and FCR remained unaffected. The 16:2.85E diet increased the DFI of the birds compared to other diets (p˂0.05). The DFI of the 18:2.65, 18:2.75, and 16:2.75E Guinea fowls was higher than those of 18:2.85E, 14:2.65E, 14:2.75E, and 14:2.85 birds (p˂0.05). The DWG of fowls improved by the 16:2.85E diet compared to other diets, except for the 18P:2.65E and 16P:2.75E diets (p˂0.05). The interaction had a significant impact on the EN, EYH, and EM of the Guinea fowl egg while FCR remained unaffected. The 18P:2.85E diet improved the EN and EM of the birds compared to other diets (p˂0.05), The 18P:2.85E also improved the FCR for laying except for 14P:2.85E and 18P:2.75E. The 18P:2.85E diet influenced the YW of the birds compared to other diets (p˂0.05), whereas the EW of fowls improved by the 16:2.85E diet compared to other diets except for the 16P:2.65E diet (p˂0.05). In conclusion, feeding guinea fowls with a diet comprising 18% protein and 2.85 Mcal/kg metabolizable energy significantly improved egg production and quality.

Keywords

• Dietary effect
• Indigenous
• Egg laying
• Guinea fowl performance
• Growth indices

References

1. Alabi, O. O., Olajide, O. P., Oyawoye, O. E., & Cyril, A. (2023). Evaluation of indigenous Nigerian guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) keet based on different dietary energy and protein inclusion levels. Tropical Agriculture, 100(2), 89-96.
2. Alabi, O. O., Abang, C., Olajide, O. P., Animashahun, R. O., & Etta-Oyong, S. O. (2023). Growth performance and carcass traits of indigenous Nigerian guinea fowl fed on different dietary protein levels. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research, 10(3), 403–409.
3. Alli, O. I., Okukpe, K. M., & Victoria, O. (2016). Reproductive characteristics of The Nigerian Local Guinea Fowl on different production systems. Waya Journal of Animal Science, 1332–1339.
4. AOAC. (2012). Official methods of analysis.
5. Baruwa, O. I., & Sofoluwe, N. A. (2016). Profitability and Resource Use Efficiency of Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) Production under Tropical Conditions. Journal of Livestock Science, 7.
6. Bryden, W. L., Li, X., Ruhnke, I., Zhang, D., & Shini, S. (2021). Nutrition, feeding and laying hen welfare. Animal Production Science, 61, 893–914. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN20396
7. Da Nóbrega, I. P. T., Reis, M. de P., Morillo, F. A. H., de Freitas, L. F. V. B., Bittencourt, L. C., Fernandes, J. B. K., & Sakomura, N. K. (2022). Dynamics of Growth and Egg Traits in Three Dietary Balanced Protein Scenarios Applied for Laying Hens. Animals, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12111371
8. Duodu, A., Annor, S. Y., Kagya-Agyemang, J. K., & Kyere, C. G. (2018). Influence of Strain on Production and Some Other Traits of Indigenous Guinea Fowls (Numida meleagris) in Ghana. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Tech., 30(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2018/44123

9. Ebegbulem, V. N. (2018). Prospects and challenges to guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) production in Nigeria. Int. J. Avi. Wild. Biol., 3(2). https://doi.org/10.15406/ijawb.2018.03.00083
10. Genstat. (2013) GenStat Release 10.3DE (PC/Windows). VSN International Ltd. Rothamsted Experimental Station.
11. Gwaza D. S., & Elkana H. (2017). Assessment of external egg characteristics and production indices of the dual purpose French guinea fowl under semi-arid conditions in Nigeria. J Res Rep Genet., 1(1), 13–17.
12. Heo, Y. J., Park, J., Kim, Y. B., Kwon, B. Y., Kim, D. H., Song, J. Y., & Lee, K. W. (2023). Effects of dietary protein levels on performance, nitrogen excretion, and odour emission of growing pullets and laying hens. Poult. Sci., 102(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2023.102798
13. Ismoyowati, I., Indrasanti, D., Ratriyanto, A., & Sumiati, S. (2022). Egg production, egg quality, and fatty acid profile of Indonesian Local Ducks fed with turmeric, curcuma, and probiotic supplementation. Trop. Anim. Sci. J., 45(3), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2022.45.3.319
14. Karakolev, R., Petrova-tsenin, P., Petrova, R., & Koynarski, T. (2022). Effect of Avigen immunomodulator on beta lysine activity in broilers. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(2), 260-265.
15. Kazemi, V., Zarghi, H., & Golian, A. (2022). The effect of dietary energy and nutrient density on performance, egg components, egg quality, and profits of Hy-Line W-36 during the peak stage of the first laying cycle. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 21(1), 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2022.2090287
16. Kleyn, F. J., Chrystal, P. V., & Ciacciariello, M. (2022). Energy systems and laying hens an evaluation of energy systems for the formulation of practical diets for laying hens. J. Appl. Poul. Res., 31(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japr.2022.100249
17. Kocetkovs, V., Radenkovs, V., Juhnevica-Radenkova, K., Jakovlevs, D., & Muizniece-Brasava, S. (2022). The Impact of Eggshell Thickness on the Qualitative Characteristics of Stored Eggs Produced by Three Breeds of Laying Hens of the Cage and Cage-Free Housed Systems. Appl. Sci. (Switzerland), 12(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211539
18. Mohammed, A., & Dei, H. K. (2017). Comparative performance of Guinea Keets managed under two brooding systems in The Tolon District of Northern Region of Ghana. UDS Int. J. Dev., 4(1), 42–45. Retrieved from http://www.udsijd.org
19. Mohsenpour Z, Olyaee M, Janmohammadi H, & Fani A. (2020). Comparison of internal and external, chemical composition and fatty acid profile of guinea fowl eggs (Numida meleagris) and table eggs. J. Anim. Sci. Res.., 29, 1–15.
20. Mikulski, D., Jankowski, J., Mikulska, M., & Demey, V. (2020). Effects of dietary probiotic (Pediococcus acidilactici) supplementation on productive performance, egg quality, and body composition in laying hens fed diets varying in energy density. Poult. Sci., 99(4), 2275-2285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.046
21. Musigwa, S., Morgan, N., Swick, R., Cozannet, P., & Wu, S. B. (2021). Optimisation of dietary energy utilisation for poultry–a literature review. World Poult. Sci. J., 77(1), 5–27.https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2020.1865117
22. Musundire M. T., Halimani T. E., & Chimonyo M. (2017): Physical and chemical properties of meat from scavenging chickens and helmeted guinea fowls in response to age and sex. British Poult. Sci., DOI: 10.1080/00071668.2017.1313961
23. Oghenero, O., Uhunmwangho, E., Yarhere, E., & Okpara, O. (2021). Poultry farmers’ training needs analysis in Edo State, Nigeria. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31(1), 216-227.
24. Oke, O. E., Oso, A., Iyasere, O. S., Adebowale, T., Akanji, T., Odusami, O., … Daramola, J. O. (2020). Growth performance and physiological responses of helmeted guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) to different stocking densities in the humid tropical environment. Agric. Trop. et Subtrop., 53(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/ats-2020-0001
25. Portillo-Salgado, R., Bautista-Ortega, J., Chay-Canul, A. J., Sánchez-Casanova, R. E., Segura-Correa, J. C., & Cigarroa-Vázquez, F. A. (2022). Factors affecting productive performance of guinea fowl: A REVIEW. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems, Vol. 25. Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan. https://doi.org/10.56369/tsaes.3861
26. Rafiu, T. A., Adetutu, O. I., Adesoye, F. A., Adeniji, O. J., & Oluwafemi, E. O. (2021). Performance characteristics and meat quality assessment of guinea fowl fed varied levels of dietary protein. Nig. J. Anim. Prod., 48(5), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.51791/njap.v48i5.3194
27. Shoyombo, A. J., Yakubu, A., Adebambo, A. O., Popoola, M. A., Olafadehan, O. A., Wheto, M., … Adebambo, O. A. (2021). Characterisation of indigenous helmeted guinea fowls in Nigeria for meat and egg production. World’s Poult. Sci. J., Vol. 77, pp. 1037–1058. Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2021.1974287
28. Soara, A. E., Talaki, E., Dayo, G. K., Oke, O. E., Belem, A. M. G., & Tona, K. (2020). Indigenous Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) production in West Africa: Inventory, performances and constraints – A review. Eur. Poult. Sci., 84. https://doi.org/10.1399/eps.2020.303
29. Vekic, M., Jotanovic, S., & Savic, D. (2018). Certain egg quality parameters of grey guinea fowl in extensive rearing. Biot. Anim. Husb., 34(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.2298/bah1802207v
30. Wasti, S., Sah, N., & Mishra, B. (2020). Impact of heat stress on poultry health and performances, and potential mitigation strategies. Anims., 10(8), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10081266
31. Yakubu, A., Jegede, P., Wheto, M., Shoyombo, A. J., Adebambo, A. O., Popoola, M. A., … Adebambo, O. A. (2022). Multivariate characterisation of morphobiometric traits of indigenous helmeted Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) in Nigeria. PLoS ONE, 17(6 June). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261048
32. Yakubu, Ibrahim, Egbo, M. L., Shuaibu, & Umar, H. A. (2019). Some Factors Affecting Incubation Parameters of Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) Eggs. Nig. J. Anim. Sci. Tech (Vol. 2). Maiduguri. Retrieved from www.unimaid.edu.ng
33. Zeleke, G., Urge, M., Animut, G., Esatu, W., Dessie, T., Zeleke, G., … Dessie, T. (2020). Comparative laying performance, egg quality, fertility and hatchability of Guinea Fowl with Tilili, Horro and Potchefstroom Koekoek chicken breeds. Op. J. Anim. Sci., 10(4), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.4236/OJAS.2020.104043