Proximate and Mineral Composition of Bitterleaf Meal
The leaves harvested lush green retained their green colour after processing could imply that the chlorophyll compounds responsible for the green colouration of leaves were not adversely affected. The proximate nutrient and some mineral composition of Bitterleaf Meal (BLM) are presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Proximate and Some Mineral Composition of BLM (% Dry Matter)
Nutritional Component | % Composition |
Moisture content | 7.56 |
Crude Protein | 27.40 |
Crude Fat | 17.00 |
Crude Fibre | 11.36 |
Ash | 9.73 |
Nitrogen Free Extract | 26.96 |
Sodium (mg/g) | 0.04 |
Potassium (mg/g) | 2.14 |
Calcium (mg/g) | 1.01 |
Magnesium (mg/g) | 0.52 |
Phosphorus (mg/g) | 0.55 |
The results indicated that bitter leaf meal had a dry matter of 92.44%. The crude protein content was 27.40%, which is higher than the value reported by Tsado et al. (2015), but lower than the crude protein content reported by Asaolu et al. (2012) and Sodamade (2013). The ash content of 9.73% was lower than that reported by Udochukwu et al. (2015) but higher than the value reported by Tsado et al. (2015), and Asaolu et al. (2012). Higher carbohydrate content was reported in this study than what was obtained by Udochukwu et al. (2015) and Ejoh et al. (2007). The mineral profile of Bitterleaf meal was shown in the Table to contain 0.04 mg/g Sodium, 2.14 mg/g Potassium, and 1.01 mg/g Calcium. The analysis result shows that BLM can support growth because protein and carbohydrates are the nutrients required for growth, while minerals are required for strong and healthy bones development. Several factors are most likely responsible for the variations in the chemical and mineral composition reported; the environment of the plant, the season of planting the stem as well as harvesting the leaves, accuracy of the analytical methods used, cultural practices carried out during the cultivation of the plant, the preparatory method of the leafmeal before analysis, and the type of fertilizers which were previously used in the soil because a soil treated with nitrogen fertilizer will grow protein-rich plants.
Feeding Trial and Growth
The weights of the birds assigned to the diets were not significantly different to ensure minimal variation due to size differential. Table 3 shows the performance of the broiler chickens on the test diets was significantly (P < 0.05) different from that of the Control. A trend was observed in the average weight gain per bird across the diets, as the average weight gain per bird in the test diets (D2, D3 and D4) improved with an increase in the inclusion of BLM; this improvement in the weight gain may have been due to the leafmeal causing an improved secretion of digestive enzymes causing a better utilization of the available nutrients in the feed.
Table 3
Performance of finishing Broiler Chickens fed diets containing BLM as additive for 28 days
Parameter | Diets (% inclusion of BLM in broiler chicken finisher diet) | |
D1 (0%) | D2 (2.5%) | D3 (5.0%) | D4 (7.5%) | SEM |
Average Initial Weight (g/bird) at 7 weeks | 1114.75 ± 2.82 | 1116.56 ± 1.78 | 1115.00 ± 2.32 | 1114.70 ± 2.52 | 0.44 |
Average Final Weight (g/bird) | 2085.13 ± 27.53a | 2170.31 ± 31.92a | 2210.06 ± 56.30a | 2409.33 ± 62.21b | 64.38 |
Average Weight Gain (g/bird) | 970.38 ± 34.39a | 1053.75 ± 25.94ab | 1095.06 ± 8.92b | 1294.63 ± 24.71c | 33.64 |
Average Weight Gain (g/bird/day) | 34.66 ± 0.53a | 37.63 ± 0.38ab | 39.11 ± 0.13b | 46.24 ± 0.37c | 2.41 |
Average Feed Intake (g/bird) | 3564.63 ± 63.80a | 2956.91 ± 54.17b | 3475.22 ± 74.12a | 3849.54 ± 50.28c | 59.61 |
Average Feed Intake (g/bird/day) | 127.31 ± 0.31a | 105.60 ± 0.79b | 124.12 ± 1.10a | 137.48 ± 0.73c | 6.65 |
Feed Conversion Ratio | 3.67 ± 0.11a | 2.81 ± 0.07b | 3.17 ± 0.06c | 2.97 ± 0.15bc | 0.09 |
abc means on the same row with same or no superscript are not significantly (P > 0.05) different.
The bioactivities of BLM could have enhanced the gastrointestinal activities of the chickens and hence may be responsible for this improved weight gain; this supports the report by Ijeh et al. (1996) on the bioactivities of VA in the gastrointestinal tract of animals. Other factors that could have influenced the weight gain per bird include the genetic makeup of the individual bird, light duration, the housing temperature amongst others. The average feed intake per bird seem to not have been influenced by the inclusion of BLM despite its bitter taste, while Diet 2 had the lowest average value (2960.71 g/bird), Diet 4 recorded the highest average value for feed intake (3850.97 g/bird) and this may be because their bitter taste receptor is very small and found behind their tongue as reported by Roura et al. (2013). The birds fed the diets containing BLM had lesser feed conversion ratio (FCR) than the birds fed the Control diet (D1); implying that less quantity of the BLM diets will be required to get a desired standard size.
Blood Metabolites
The total protein concentration of the blood showed no particular trend across the diets, with D3 showing the lowest concentration and D2 having the highest concentration. However, there was a trend in the albumin concentration of the blood; the Control diet (D1) had the least albumin concentration, followed by D2 (2.5% BLM) and the trend progressed with D4 (7.5% BLM) having the highest albumin concentration. The blood metabolites are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Some blood metabolites of Broiler Chickens fed diets containing BLM as additive
Parameter | DIETS (% inclusion of BLM in broiler diet) | S.E.M. |
D1 (0%) | D2 (2.5%) | D3 (5.0%) | D4 (7.5%) |
T.P (g/dL) | 4.33 ± 0.09 | 4.47 ± 0.20 | 4.07 ± 0.09 | 4.37 ± 0.17 | 0.15 |
ALB (g/dL) | 1.33 ± 0.09 | 1.40 ± 0.15 | 1.50 ± 0.06 | 1.57 ± 0.09 | 0.10 |
GLO (g/dL) | 3.00 ± 0.06ab | 3.07 ± 0.22a | 2.57 ± 0.07b | 2.80 ± 0.12ab | 0.13 |
GLU (mg/dL) | 117.00 ± 5.69 | 117.00 ± 3.06 | 110.00 ± 4.58 | 105.00 ± 6.11 | 5.00 |
ab means on the same row with same or no superscript are not significantly (P > 0.05) different |
T.P = Total Protein; ALB = Albumin; GLO = Globulin; GLU = Glucose |
This increase in albumin concentration as the inclusion level of BLM increased may have been due to the effect of the leafmeal on the liver. It is a possibility that the liver may have been injured or overworked leading to more secretion and escape of the albumin into the blood stream. This supports the report of Ologhobo et al. (1998) that bitterleaf meal in broiler diet at a particularly high level even as an additive could cause injuries to internal organs. The blood glucose level experienced a decrease with an increase in the inclusion level of BLM; while the control treatment and the treatment with the lowest BLM inclusion level in the diet (D1 and D2) had the highest blood glucose level, the other levels of dietary inclusion of BLM experienced a decrease in their blood glucose as the inclusion level increased. This implies that bitterleaf meal can be used in cases of hyperglycemia (high blood glucose), to bring about a reduction and control of blood glucose level, hence supporting the reports of Atangwho et al. (2009), Okolie et al. (2008), Akah et al. (2004) and Akah et al. (2002) that bitterleaf has an anti-diabetic effect and can be used in the treatment of diabetic conditions.
Carcass Evaluation
Table 5 showed the average liveweight of the broiler chickens fed on diets containing BLM was greater than that of the broiler chickens fed the control diet. Also, the dress percentage of the broiler chickens fed the leafmeal-based diets at higher inclusion levels (Diet 3 and 4) was also greater than the control-diet fed broiler chickens; Diet 4 gave the highest value for dress percentage (78.20 ± 1.60), back weight (19.57 ± 1.38%) and breast weight (23.34 ± 0.71%).
Table 5
Carcass evaluation of Broiler Chickens fed diets containing BLM as additive (Organs)
| DIETS (% inclusion of BLM in broiler diet) | |
Parameter | D1 (0%) | D2 (2.5%) | D3 (5.0%) | D4 (7.5%) | S.E.M. |
Liveweight (Kg/bird) | 2090.80 ± 7.48a | 2177.00 ± 13.27b | 2197.00 ± 25.38b | 2403.00 ± 17.86c | 16.70 |
Liver (% LW) | 1.68 ± 0.11a | 2.45 ± 0.40b | 1.76 ± 0.03a | 1.66 ± 0.05a | 0.21 |
Kidney (% LW) | 0.48 ± 0.06a | 0.31 ± 0.06b | 0.42 ± 0.05ab | 0.43 ± 0.02ab | 0.05 |
Heart (% LW) | 0.33 ± 0.06 | 0.33 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.04 |
Right Lungs (% LW) | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.03 |
Left Lungs (% LW) | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.26 ± 0.03 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.23 ± 0.03 | 0.04 |
Spleen (% LW) | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.00 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.02 |
Koilin layer (% LW) | 0.28 ± 0.06 | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.38 ± 0.17 | 0.09 |
Gizzard (% LW) | 2.25 ± 0.35 | 2.16 ± 0.39 | 1.87 ± 0.18 | 1.98 ± 0.14 | 0.29 |
abc means on the same row with same or no superscript are not significantly (P > 0.05) different |
The presence of BLM in the diets may have caused a reduced head weight percentage as its inclusion level increased i.e. the average head weight for the control-diet fed chickens was higher than the diets with BLM and as the inclusion level of BLM increased across the treatments, the head weight decreased. The liveweight percentage of the back and breast improved as the inclusion of BLM increased; the leafmeal based Diets, D2, D3 and D4, had higher values than the control Diet, D1, with D4 giving the highest value for back weight (19.57 ± 1.38%) and breast weight (23.34 ± 0.71%). The bird on the control diet, D1, had higher liveweight percentage of wing weight (right wing 4.10 ± 0.23 and left wing 4.15 ± 0.20), and the wing weight percentage decreased as the inclusion level of BLM increased. Diet 3 had the highest percentage values for the right and left drumstick (5.65 ± 0.30 and 6.09 ± 0.61 respectively), and neck weight (4.18 ± 0.25).
Table 6
Carcass evaluation of Broiler Chickens fed diets containing BLM as additive (Commercial cuts)
Parameter | DIETS (% inclusion of BLM in broiler chicken diet) | S.E.M |
D1 (0%) | D2 (2.5%) | D3 (5.0%) | D4 (7.5%) |
Liveweight (Kg/bird) | 2090.80 ± 7.48a | 2177.00 ± 13.27b | 2197.00 ± 25.38b | 2403.00 ± 17.86c | 16.70 |
Dress percentage (%) | 74.45 ± 2.94 | 72.37 ± 3.22 | 75.69 ± 0.94 | 78.20 ± 1.60 | 2.37 |
Head (%LW) | 2.56 ± 0.11 | 2.54 ± 0.26 | 2.28 ± 0.16 | 2.18 ± 0.14 | 0.18 |
Right Drumstick (%LW) | 5.34 ± 0.18 | 5.60 ± 0.34 | 5.65 ± 0.30 | 5.46 ± 0.20 | 0.26 |
Left Drumstick (%LW) | 5.67 ± 0.24 | 5.59 ± 0.25 | 6.09 ± 0.61 | 5.60 ± 0.34 | 0.39 |
Neck wt. (%LW) | 4.04 ± 0.05 | 3.95 ± 0.47 | 4.18 ± 0.25 | 3.58 ± 0.21 | 0.29 |
Neck Length (cm) | 13.39 ± 1.51 | 13.61 ± 0.84 | 14.11 ± 1.60 | 15.48 ± 0.80 | 1.24 |
Back wt. (%LW) | 14.91 ± 2.08 | 15.07 ± 2.60 | 16.97 ± 1.29 | 19.57 ± 1.38 | 1.92 |
Breast wt. (%LW) | 17.32 ± 2.34 | 17.58 ± 2.56 | 20.59 ± 1.16 | 23.34 ± 0.71 | 1.86 |
Right Wing (%LW) | 4.10 ± 0.23 a | 4.00 ± 0.06 ab | 3.96 ± 0.25 ab | 3.45 ± 0.10 b | 0.18 |
Left Wing (%LW) | 4.15 ± 0.20a | 3.94 ± 0.09ab | 3.70 ± 0.20ab | 3.53 ± 0.08b | 0.15 |
Right Leg (%LW) | 2.33 ± 0.31 | 2.14 ± 0.20 | 2.17 ± 0.23 | 1.85 ± 0.13 | 0.22 |
Left Leg (%LW) | 2.31 ± 0.33 | 2.12 ± 0.19 | 2.17 ± 0.26 | 1.81 ± 0.13 | 0.24 |
Right Thigh (%LW) | 4.47 ± 0.28 | 5.43 ± 1.13 | 4.34 ± 0.12 | 3.71 ± 0.39 | 0.62 |
Left Thigh (%LW) | 4.51 ± 0.34 | 5.07 ± 1.07 | 4.38 ± 0.26 | 3.92 ± 0.50 | 0.63 |
abc means on the same row with same or no superscript are not significantly (P > 0.05) different |
Table 6 showed that there was a significant difference in the percentage liveweight of the kidney and liver. These are organs having direct contact with the blood. Though the feed additive (bitterleaf meal) may have played a role in the liveweight percentage of these organs (liver and kidney), we cannot be absolutely certain that the variation in the liveweight percentage was caused by the inclusion level of BLM in the diet of the broiler chickens; and also, because there was no definite trend in the organs liveweight percentage. The spleen and the gizzard of the control diet, D1, had higher liveweight percentage than those of the test diets containing the leafmeal, but the koilin layer of the test diet containing 7.5% BLM (D4) had a greater liveweight percentage than the other treatments. The percentage liveweight of the koilin layer may be a determinant of how much work the gizzard underwent in the processing and digesting of the diets.