Content uploaded by Kelly Dumorné
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kelly Dumorné on Dec 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
725
Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science
Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola
ISSN 1516-635X Oct - Dec 2018 / v.20 / n.4 / 725-730
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0728
Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Leucaena (Leucaena
leucocephala) and Banana Flour (Musa
cavendishii) on Performance of Laying Hens
Author(s)
Dumorné KI https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1007-0876
I Department of Engineering Chemical of
Universidad de la Frontera, Avenida Francisco
Salazar 01145, Box 54D. Temuco 4811230, Chile.
Mail Address
Corresponding author e-mail address
Kelly Dumorné
Department of Engineering Chemical of
Universidad de la Frontera, Avenida
Francisco Salazar 01145, Box 54D.
Temuco 4811230, Chile.
Phone: +56 957552024
Email: k.dumorne01@ufromail.cl
Keywords
Animal diet, Banana our, laying hens,
Leucaena.
Submitted: 09/January/2018
Approved: 28/May/2018
ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of Leucaena
(Leucaena leucocephala) and Banana our (Musa cavendishii) on
performance of laying hens. Fifty laying hens (3 months of age) were
randomly distributed into ve experimental groups, each consisting of
10 laying hens. The groups were control (10 laying hens); L6 (Leucaena,
6 g/day (10 laying hens)); L8 (Leucaena, 8.0 g/day (10 laying hens));
L10 (Leucaena, 10 g/day (10 laying hens)); and L12 (Leucaena, 12 g/day
(10 laying hens)), in addition, ve levels of Banana our control (10
laying hens); 25% (10 laying hens); 50%, (10 laying hens); 75% (10
laying hens); and 100% (10 laying hens), were assessed respectively.
The experimental period lasted from 4 to 8 weeks. The results of this
study showed that there were no signicant differences between of
treatments L6, L8, L10, and L12 for body weight during the rst 30 days
compared with the control, whereas for weight gain, statistically
signicant differences were observed between the control compared
with the treatments L6, L8, L10, and L12 for days 10, 20 and 30 (p<0.05).
Additionally, statistically signicant differences were found between
different levels of Banana our for weight gain (g) between the control
with the levels 25, 50 75, 100%, respectively for days 20 and 30. In
the case of feed intake (g) statistically signicant differences were
found during day 30 between the control and 100%, also between the
control and levels 25, and 75%, respectively. From the results, it can be
concluded that the inclusion of Leucaena and banana our have effects
on weight gain, body weight and feed intake of laying hens.
INTRODUCTION
Many of the traditional ingredients used in hen’s diets are forecast to
be in short supply within ten years. Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala)
is a plant native to Central America, it is grown extensively in many
parts of the world (Agbede, 2003). This plant is considered as a protein
source for the poultry sector (Alkarkhi et al., 2011). It is a plant rich
in nutrients with high digestibility bers, however, it contains toxic
amino acid as the mimosine that are found mainly in the leaves and the
dried seeds (Atawodi et al., 2010; Mutayoba et al., 2011). According
to Dilger et al. (2004), the use of ingredients with high ber levels
in poultry diets may reduce the digestibility of nutrients and increase
nitrogen excretion. Safwat et al. (2014) have reported the importance
of Leucaena in the laying hen’s diets. Studies on Leucaena showed that
the leaves are rich in energy, protein, and vitamins (Nieves et al., 2004;
Ayssiwede et al., 2011). Limited research was published about the use
of Banana our in animal feed, in particular laying hens.
Banana, is the fourth plant more produced in the world with over
7 million tons (Ribiero et al., 2012). It contains as high as 74% starch
726
Dumorné K Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Leucaena (Leucaena
leucocephala) and Banana Flour (Musa cavendishii)
on Performance of Laying Hens
on dry matter basis (Babatunde 1992). Banana is
rich in dietary bre, proteins, essential amino acids,
cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin, starch, resistant starch,
polyunsaturated fatty acids and potassium (Rodríguez-
Ambriz et al., 2008; Sarawong et al., 2014). Currently,
industrial our production from green banana is of
interest in view of its nutritional value, especially the
high quantity of resistant starch between 40.9-58.5
% and dietary bre 6.0-15.5 % (Tribess et al., 2009;
Sarawong et al., 2014). It has high starch content and
is widely used in animal feed (Martinez et al., 2009).
Despite of being a valuable nutritional component, the
lack of use in animal diet constitutes a very nutritional
due to contains extractable bioactive compounds,
which can be used as value-added materials (Safwat
et al., 2014). It is projected that the utilization of
Leucaena and Banana our is to be a sustainable
resource for laying hens production and diet, as they
are easily available and contain a considerable amount
of nutrients. The purpose of this study was to assess
the effects of Leucaena leucocephala and Banana our
on performance of laying hens.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animals, experimental treatments and
diet
The experiment was performed housing a total of
50 laying hens in a poultry facility at the University of
State (Haiti). They were randomly selected from State
University farm, and each laying hen was placed in
individual cages. The facility was 10× 25 meters with
four ventilators and 4 windows, and a total of 15 land-
pens (1.6 × 0.8 m) were used. Ventilation was turned
on to optimize the climate 24h before the laying hens
were brought in.
Air humidity was kept at 60 to 65 % in the early
growing period by spraying water on the oor. Lamps
were installed at a height of 2.2 meters above the oor.
The water supply was through drinkers, one for each
hen and the food supply was a feeder per hen. The
experimental design included ve experimental groups
of 10 laying hens each. The dietary treatments were as
follows: Control (10 laying hens); L6 (Leucaena, 6 g/day
(10 laying hens)); L8 (Leucaena, 8.0 g/day (10 laying
hens)); 3) L10 (Leucaena, 10 g/day (10 laying hens));
and 4) L12 (Leucaena,, 12 g/day (10 laying hens)), in
addition, ve levels of Banana our: Control (10 laying
hens); 25% (10 laying hens); 50%, (10 laying hens);
75% (10 laying hens) and 100% (10 laying hens) were
assessed.
Chemical composition and chemical
analyses of experimental diets
Chemical composition and chemical analyses of
experimental diets of Leucaena and banana our
were determined using the standard AOAC (2000)
procedures to determine dry matter (DM), organic
matter (OM), ether extract (EE), crude ber (CF), and
crude protein (CP) content. Neutral detergent ber
(NDF) and acid detergent ber (ADF) as sequential
method were performed according to Van Soest et al.
(1991). Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the composition and
chemical analyses of experimental diets containing
different levels of Leucaena leucocephala and Banana
our.
Table 1 – Composition and chemical analyses of experi-
mental diets containing different levels of Leucaena
leucocephala.
Treatments Ingredients (%)
Leaf meal 6 8 10 12
Sorghum 57.34 56.00 54.46 52.22
Soya bean meal 15.45 15.12 14.56 12.69
CaCO3 8.75 8.10 7.8 7.46
Canola meal 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Corn stover 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Soya oil 1.92 2.29 2.5 3.48
Di-Cal-phosphate 1.56 1.46 1.38 2.3
Lysine 0.18 0.27 0.38 0.80
Methionine 0.21 0.17 0.33 0.46
NaCl 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Mycosorb 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Funginat 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Choline chloride 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Vita. and Min. premixa0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Anti-oxidant 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Chemical analysis (calculated as % on DM basis)
Dry matter (%) 87.25 89.56 90.34 90.44
Gross energy (kcal/kg) 15.68 16.24 15.46 17.15
Crude protein (%) 19.60 19.76 20.10 20.46
ADF (%) 8.4 9.10 9.34 9.88
NDF (%) 54.45 58.20 59.38 61.22
Calcium (%) 3.12 3.44 4.22 4.66
Phosphorus (%) 0.56 0.52 0.45 0.36
Ash (%) 12.80 12.42 11.78 11.33
aContent kg-1 of diet: Manganese, 62 mg; iodine, 1 mg; iron, 53 mg, copper, 5 mg;
zinc, 54 mg; selenium, 0.2 mg; vitamin A, 8000 UI; vitamin D, 2500 UI; vitamin E, 8 UI;
vitamin K, 2 mg; vitamin B12, 0.001 mg; riboavin, 5.3 mg; pantothenate of calcium,
12 mg; niacin, 33 mg; choline, 500 mg; folic acid, 0.5 mg; thiamine, 1 mg; pyridoxine,
2.1 mg; biotin, 0.04 mg.
Performance parameters
Feed intake (g/day), Body weight (g/day) and Weight
gain (Final weight - Initial weight) were determined
weekly.
727
Dumorné K Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Leucaena (Leucaena
leucocephala) and Banana Flour (Musa cavendishii)
on Performance of Laying Hens
Leucaena preparation
Leucaena was prepared according to protocol
described by Abou-Elezz et al. (2011). Leucaena fresh
leaves were collected from trees growing at Port-au-
Prince, under the tropical conditions of Haiti. The
branches were cut from trees; leaves were separated
from branches, spread out, and dried under shade
for a period of 2 days. Afterwards, they were dried in
ovens (70 °C) for 2 days. The dried leaves were crushed
with a hammer mill to make the Leucaena, which were
incorporated to the experimental diets.
Banana flour preparation
The bananas were produced and collected by the
State University farm, they were chopped into pieces
to facilitate drying. The fragments of the bananas were
dried in an oven at a temperature of 60 °C for 2 days.
Additionally, they were ground and transformed into
our. Table 2 shows the composition of Banana our
of diets for laying hens.
Table 2 – Composition and chemical analyses of the
experimental of diets for laying hens.
Ingredients 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Banana our 0 26.5 35.05 40.56 54.08
Hominy 54.08 27.58 19.03 13.52 0
Soy 40.45 40.45 40.45 40.55 40.45
Methionine 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Zinc-bacitracin 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Fat 1 1 1 1 1
Limestone 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34
NaCl 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Vitamin-mineral 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Mycotoxin 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Table 3 – Composition and chemical analyses of Banana
our.
Banana our Nutrients content (dry matter)
DM CP EE CF ADF NDF
0% 94.98 24.37 2.80 15.60 22.00 60.00
25% 97.99 27.47 3.00 14.40 47.00 64.00
50% 96.74 26.11 3.60 12.80 46.00 63.00
75% 95.78 22.57 2.00 11.80 43.00 86.00
100% 96.64 23.31 1.40 10.40 49.00 87.00
DM dry matter, CP crude protein, EE ether extract, CF crude ber, ADF acid detergent
ber, NDF neutral detergent ber.
Statistical analysis
The data were expressed as mean values ± standard
deviation (SD) and were analyzed by analysis of
variance using a one-way ANOVA procedure based
on a completely randomized design. The GraphPad
Prisma® version 6.0 statistical software (GraphPad
Software, San Diego CA) was also used to analyze the
data. The analysis of differences between the average
values of the treatment groups were compared by
application of Tukey’s tests. The level of signicance
was set at p<0. 05.
RESULTS
Chemical composition
Data for chemical analysis of Leucaena leucocephala
and Musa cavendishii are illustrated in Tables 1 and 3.
Growth Performances
No differences (p<0.05) between the Control
and the groups of treatments on Body weight were
observed during the rst 30 days. Regarding, weight
gain, statistically signicant differences (p<0.05) were
observed between the Control (3.01 ± 0.75) and of
the treatments L8 (0.45 ± 0.15 g), L10 (0.34 ± 0.17 g),
and L12 (0.60 ± 0.07 g) on the 10th day. In addition,
on day 20, statistically signicant differences (p<0.05)
were observed between the Control (4.23 ± 2.08 g)
and the L10 (0.25 ± 1.13 g). On the 30th day, statistically
signicant differences (p<0.05) were observed between
the Control (2.23 ± 1.65 g) and the treatments L6 (0.20
± 0.07 g), L8 (0.05 ± 0.03 g), L10 (0.08 ± 0.03 g) and L12
(0.05 ± 0.03 g), respectively (Table 4).
There was no signicant difference in Weight gain
during the days 15, 20 and 25 between the Control and
the levels 25, 50 75 and 100% respectively, while on
the 30th day statistically signicant differences (p<0.05)
were observed between the Control (21.67 ± 0.6 g)
and the 25% (4.87 ± 0.02 g) and 75% (9.67 ± 0.2
g). For feed intake, statistically signicant differences
were observed on the 15th day at level 100% (17.92
± 1.47 g) comparing with the Control (25.40 ± 2.01
g). However, on day 20, the feed intake was increased
signicantly between the Control (11.34 ± 0.9 g) and
the level 100% (2.45 ± 0.90 g).
There was no signicant difference during day 25,
whereas for day 30 statistically signicant differences
were observed between the Control (9.81 ± 1.02 g)
and the levels 25% (1.72 ± 1.78 g) and 75% (4.16
± 2.2 g), respectively). The results revealed that the
highest feed intake values were observed for the level
25% (30.84 ± 2.01g) on day 15, 50% (16.30 ± 2.9 g)
on day 20, 100% (11.81 ± 2.8 g) on day 25, and the
Control (9.81 ± 1.02 g) on day 30 (Table 5).
728
Dumorné K Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Leucaena (Leucaena
leucocephala) and Banana Flour (Musa cavendishii)
on Performance of Laying Hens
DISCUSSION
In the present study, at the end of the production
cycle, body weight, Weight gain and Feed intake were
similar between the treatments and levels compared
with the Control. These results are in agreement with
similar total feed intake, nal body weight observed
by Atawodi et al. (2008) in laying hens. Numerous
investigations have been reported that the inclusion of
L. leucocephala has effects in the diets regarding the
performance of laying hens (Nunes de Oliveira et al.,
2014). Nuhu (2010) and Abou-Elezz et al. (2011) have
reported that the variations in the nutrients composition
of Leucaena could be attributed to various factors such
as plants age, climatic conditions, agronomic practices
as well as methods of processing and analysis. The
results of this research showed that the Leucaena plays
an important role in the diet of laying hens. A study
realized by Lu et al. (2016) has shown that leucaena
could improve dietary of the animals. Although in our
study, the feed intake at day 30 for the level of 25%
(1.72g) was lower compared with the Control (9.81g).
The nutrition of the animals is very important, it directly
inuences egg quality and the economic income in the
poultry industry. Few researchers have used Banana
our in laying hen diets.
As shown in Table 4, the weight of laying hens
increased after days 15 and 25 (38.50 and 25.17 g)
in response to 75% of Banana our, whereas, for
day 30, the weight increased to 100% (16.56 g). The
increased feed intake of banana our suggested
that it does not contain anti-nutrients that reduce
the feed intake of laying hens. Another study
realized by Adeniji et al. (2007) found that banana
contained low levels of anti-nutrients such as tannins,
phytates and oxalates. The results of this experiment
clearly showed that Banana our can be used up to
100% in the diet of laying hens. Currently, there are
few studies on the use of Banana our in the diet
of laying hens. The present study suggested that
the Leucaena and Banana our could be used to
improve the performance of laying hens. Utilization of
Leucaena and Banana our can reduce the budget for
feed in poultry sector. Future researches need to try
Table 4 – Effect of dietary treatments on body weight and weight gain of laying hens*.
Dietary treatments of Leucaena leucocephala
Variable Control L6L8L10 L12
Body weight (g)
Day 0 to 1 1598.34 ± 34.76a1410.60 ± 86.86a1413.20 ± 86.44a1494.80 ± 211.44a1592.00 ± 2.00a
Days 10 to 20 1609.07 ± 25.33a1425.40 ± 87.06a1416.40 ± 86.82a1497.20 ± 210.66a1596.20 ± 2.01a
Days 20 to 30 1617.67 ± 46.78a1443.00 ± 89.90a1425.20 ± 87.54a1499.00 ± 210.28a1607.40 ± 1.77a
Days 0 to 30 1611.09 ± 28.33a1444.40 ± 90.16a1425.60 ± 87.35a1499.60 ± 210.30a1607.80 ± 1.77a
Weight gain (g)
Day 10 3.01 ± 0.75ab 2.11 ± 1.15a0.45 ± 0.15a0.34 ± 0.17a0.60 ± 0.07ª
Day 20 4.23 ± 2.08ab 2.51 ± 0.53a1.25 ± 0.18ab 0.25 ± 1.13b1.59 ± 0.19ab
Day 30 2.23 ± 1.65ab 0.20 ± 0.07a0.05 ± 0.03a0.08 ± 0.03a0.05 ± 0.03a
Control; L6 (Leucaena, 6 g/day); L8 (Leucaena, 8 g/day); L10 (Leucaena, 10 g/day) and L12 (Leucaena, 12 g/day).
a,bDifferent letters in the same row and column indicate signicant difference in the Tukey’s test. (p<0.05).
*Each group consisted of 10 Laying hens.
Table 5 – Effect of dietary treatments on weight gain and effectiveness of laying hens*
Dietary treatments of Banana our
Variable Control 25% 50% 75% 100%
Weight gain (g)
Day 15 19.09 ± 1.17a34.67 ± 0.6a38.31 ± 1.2a38.50 ± 0.87a25.44 ± 1.2b
Day 20 17.18 ± 1.06a32.83 ± 1.2a34.02 ± 0.65a26.50 ± 1.02a26.06 ± 2.3a
Day 25 21.18 ± 2.23a23.50 ± 0.3a20.89 ±1.06a25.17 ± 0.48a24.65 ± 0.55a
Day 30 21.67 ± 0.6ab 4.87 ± 0.02a16.24 ± 0.9a9.67 ± 0.2a16.56 ± 0.60a
Feed intake (g)
Day 15 25.40 ± 2.01ab 30.84 ± 2.01a26.46 ± 4.4a23.24 ± 2.35a17.92 ± 1.47b
Day 20 11.34 ± 0.9ab 17.55 ± 4.3ab 16.30 ± 2.9ab 11.57 ± 2.2b2.45 ± 0.90ab
Day 25 10.79 ± 1.1ab 10.55 ± 2.5a9.25 ± 2.01a10.07 ± 3.01a11.81 ± 2.8a
Day 30 9.81 ± 1.02b1.72 ± 1.78a7.13 ± 1.1a4.16 ± 2.2a7.93 ± 2.7a
a,bDifferent letters in the same row and column indicate signicant difference in the Tukey’s test. (p<0.05).
*Each group consisted of 10 Laying hens.
729
Dumorné K Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Leucaena (Leucaena
leucocephala) and Banana Flour (Musa cavendishii)
on Performance of Laying Hens
the use of Leucaena and Banana our in other animals
of poultry sector. Finally, the use of these ours can be
used as a partial substitute for the protein specially in
laying hens
CONCLUSIONS
This study has demonstrated that the feed intake
of laying hens varies between the different levels.
Due to the high price of protein ingredient, Leucaena
and Banana our can be useful as a good alternative
of animal feed, as they are low cost production.
Therefore, Leucaena and Banana our may be an
alternative food resource to implement sustainable
laying hen’s production in tropical countries as Haiti,
it can be included to growing laying hen’ s diets. In
addition, Leucaena and Banana our are an effective
way to enhance nutrition for the laying hens. Based
on the results, it can be concluded that Leucaena
leucocephala and Banana our can be used as protein
in the diets of laying hens. Therefore, the data in our
study may provide the basis for future research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank FONDECYT Nº
1151315 (Dr. Jorge Farías), Universidad de la Frontera,
Temuco, Chile for the Scholarships for PhD in Chile
(KD).
REFERENCES
Abou-Elezz FMK, Sarmiento-Franco L, Santos-Ricalde R, Solorio-Sánchez
F. Nutritional effects of dietary inclusion of Leucaena leucocephala and
Moringa oleifera leaf meal on Rhode Island Red hens’ performance.
Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 2011;45:163-169.
Adeniji TA, Sanni LO, Barimalaa IS, Hart AD. Nutritional and anti-nutritional
composition of our made from plantain and banana hybrid pulp and
peel mixture. Nigerian Food Journal 2007;25:68-76.
Agbede JO. Equi-protein replacement of shmeal with leucaena leaf
protein concentrate:An assessment of performance characteristics
and muscle development in the chicken. International Journal Poultry
Science 2003;6:421-429.
Alkarkhi AF, Ramli SB, Yong YS, Easa AM. Comparing physicochemical
properties of banana pulp and peel ours prepared from green and
ripe fruits. Food Chemistry 2011;129:312-318.
AOAC - Association of Ofcial Analytical Chemists. Ofcial methods of
analysis. 17th ed. Washington; 2000.
Atawodi SE, Mari D, Atawodi JC, Yahaya Y. Assessment of Leucaena
leucocephala leaves as feed supplement in laying hens. African Journal
of Biotechnology 2008;7:317-321.
Ayssiwede SB, Dieng A, Chrysostome C, Ossebi W, Hornick JL, Missohou
A. Digestibility and metabolic utilization and nutritional value of
Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) leaves meal incorporated in the diets
of indigenous seneghal chickens. International Journal Poultry Science
2010;9:767-776.
Babatunde GM. Availability of banana and plantain products for animal
feeding. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation Held in CIA,
1991; Cali. Colombia: CIAT; 1991. p.251-276.
Dilger RN, Sands JS, Ragland D, Adeola O. Digestibility of nitrogen and
amino acids in soybean meal with added soyhulls. Journal of Animal
Science 2004;82:715-724.
Lu W, Wang J, Zhang HJ, Wu SG, Qi GH. Evaluation of Moringa oleifera
leaf in laying hens:effects on laying performance, egg quality, plasma
biochemistry and organ histopathological indices. Italian Journal of
Animal Science 2016;15:658-665.
Martínez MO, Ayerdi S, Gama EC, Goni I, Bello PLA. Unripe banana our in
the ingredient to the increase of carbohydrate indigestible paste. Food
Chemistry 2009;113:121-126.
Mutayoba SK, Dierenfeld E, Mercedes VA, Frances Y, Knight CD.
Determination of chemical composition and antnutritive components
for Tanzanian locally available poultry feed ingredients. International
Journal of Poultry Science 2011;10:350-357.
Nieves D, Basilia S, Teran O, González C, Ly J. Anote on the chemical
composition and feeding characteristics of diets containing Leucaena
leucocephala and Arachis pintoi for growing rabbits. Livestock Research
for Rural Development 2004;16:99.
Nunes de Oliveira L, Freitas Braga ER, Thales CE, Filgueira MB, Jerônimo
do Nascimento GA, Lima RC. Inclusion of leucaena leaf hay in the diet
of laying hens during the growing phase. Acta Scientiarum. Animal
Sciences 2014;36:297-301.
Rodríguez-Ambriz SL, Islas-Hernández JJ, Agama-Acevedo E, Tovar J,
Bello-Pérez LA. Characterization of a bre rich powder prepared by
liquefaction of unripe banana our. Food Chemistry 2008;107:1515-
1521.
Sarawong C, Schoenlechner R, Sekiguchi K, Berghofer E, Ng PKW. Effect of
extrusion cooking on the physicochemical properties, resistant starch,
phenolic content and antioxidant capacities of green banana our.
Food Chemistry 2014;14:33-39.
Safwat AM, Sarmiento-Franco L, Santos-Ricalde RH, Nieves D. Determination
of tropical forage preferences using two offering methods in rabbits.
Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 2014;27:524-529.
Tribess TB, Hernández JP, Montealvo MGC, Menezes EW, Bello-Perez
LA, Tadini CC. Thermal properties and resistance starch content of
green banana our (Musa cavendishii) produced at different drying
conditions. Food Science and Technology 2009;42:1022-1025.
Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary ber, neutral
detergent ber and nonstartch polysaccharides in relation to animal
nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 1991;74:3583-3597.
