




































American International Journal of Agricultural Studies  

Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

ISSN 2641-4155   E-ISSN 2641-418X 

Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 

 36  

REPLACEMENT VALUE OF MAIZE WITH OTHER CEREALS 

ON PERFORMANCE AND COST BENEFIT OF BROILER 

CHICKENS 
 

 

Dr. Olufemi Olubunmi Egbewande 

Associate Professor 

Department of Animal Production 

Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger State, Nigeria 

E-mail: femi2015.ooe@gmail.com 

 

Prof. (Mrs.) Iyabo Comfort Alemede 

Professor 

Department of Animal Production Technology 

School of Agriculture and Agricultural Technology 

Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria 

E-mail: tee_baby2k6@yahoo.com 

 

Mr. Maroof Mohammed Afolabi 

Department of Animal Production 

Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger State, Nigeria 

E-mail: mofabs@yahoo.com 

 

 

     ABSTRACT                
The study investigated the effect of replacing maize with alternatives (white sorghum, red 

sorghum, grey millet and brown millet) on the growth performance and cost benefit of broiler 

chicken. A total of one hundred and fifty (150) day-old Aboica strain broiler chicks were 

purchased for this study and were randomly allotted to five dietary treatments. The five is caloric 

and is nitrogenous diets for both the starter and finisher phases were formulated with the test 

ingredients (yellow maize, white sorghum, red sorghum, grey millet and brown millet) as the 

main source of energy and were designated as T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5. Each treatment was 

further divided into three replicates with ten (10) birds per replicate. The parameters 

investigated were growth performance and economics of production. This study revealed no 

significant (p>0.05) differences in weight gain among all the treatment. Furthermore, it showed 

a significantly (p>0.05) lower cost of producing the four alternatives as compared to the control 

(maize) and higher gross profit. It was concluded that white sorghum, red sorghum, grey millet 

and brown millet can replace yellow maize without any adverse effect on the health status and 

general performance of broiler chickens. 

 

Keywords: Cost Benefit, Millet, Performance, Sorghum.  

 

 

 

http://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas
mailto:femi2015.ooe@gmail.com
mailto:tee_baby2k6@yahoo.com
mailto:mofabs@yahoo.com


https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

37 

INTRODUCTION 

Poultry is one of the animals with the highest rate of production and growth Ezieshi et al. (2004). 

Oke et al. (2016) also noted that it is the quickest source of meat, as it matures very quickly 

compared to other livestock. Ukomu et al. (2018) added that poultry products are popular and 

well accepted in all cultural, social and religious functions. Poultry meat and egg, generally 

regarded as the animal source foods, are the best sources of high quality protein and micro-

nutrients that are essential for normal development and good health (Anyaegbu et al., 2018). 

According to Taste Inc. (2019), chicken provides less calories, as well as low cholesterol and 

saturated fat than beef. As regards health status, white meat (from chicken) is more preferable for 

consumption to red meat (beef) as the later has been correlated with increased incidence of 

certain body challenges, including cancer and heart related ailments (McAnlis, 2019). Nosike et 

al. (2018) clarified that chicken is suitable for high blood pressure and coronary heart disease 

patients. However, Nigerian poultry industry has been witnessing series of problems, owing 

largely to high cost of feed ingredients, which has been a major problem militating against 

progress in poultry enterprises in Nigeria (Anyaegbu et al., 2018). According to Igboeli (2000), 

provision of feed alone accounts for up to 80 % of the total cost of production, enough to rob the 

farmer of his total profit worth. In view of this ugly development therefore, Ukomu et al. (2018) 

considers it imperative to intensify efforts in the search for cheaper, abundant and locally 

available alternatives. To this effect, Ndanusa (2016) stressed that for good result, such 

alternatives must be used to replace the major energy or protein sources with the highest rate of 

inclusion in the diet.  

The major energy source used in poultry feed formulation is maize. It takes up to 60 % of 

the poultry diet (Oyawoye et al., 2017). Maize is also a major staple food for human population 

in developing countries such as Nigeria. Hence, there is high competition for maize as livestock 

feed ingredient and as food by humans, which has led to high cost of maize, thereby increasing 

the cost of animal feed production. It is this high cost of the commodity, coupled with stiff 

competition for its consumption between man and livestock that has necessitated its replacement 

with its alternatives in formulation of poultry feed. According to Yisa et al. (2017), the most 

common alternative cereal grains used in replacement of maize in livestock feed are sorghum 

and millet. These contain nutritive values that are closely related to those of maize. More so, 

their inclusion in animal ration has not been found to have significant negative impact on the 

growth and performance characteristics of chickens. Mohamed et al. (2015) had reported an 

experiment in which sorghum had been used to replace maize up to 45 % and appeared to be 

biologically better without any adverse effects on broiler production. This study therefore 

investigated the impact of these important alternatives (white and red sorghum, and grey and 

brown millet) on the performances and cost benefit of producing broiler chickens. 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Experimental Location 

The experiment was conducted at the Poultry Unit of Niger State Agricultural and 

Mechanization Development Authority (NAMDA), Maitumbi-Shiroro Road, Minna, Niger State, 

between July and September, 2019. Minna is a metropolitan settlement situated in the Southern 

Guinea Savannnah Vegetation Belt of Central Nigeria. It is situated on Latitude 90 37’ and 

Longitude 60 33’ (Longman, 2003) and bordered by Latitude 90 33’ and 90 42’ to the North and 

Longitude 60 27’ and 60 35’ to the East (Googlearth, 2012).  

 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

38 

Sources of Experimental Ingredients 

The test ingredients (maize, sorghum and millet) and soyabean were purchased from Maitumbi 

and Gunu markets. Vaccines, antibiotics, lysine, methionine and premixes were purchased from 

Step-by-Step Shop along Kpakungu - Dutsen Kura road, opposite Minna Ultra-Modern Market, 

while other ingredients, including bone meal, fishmeal and limestone were purchased from 

Timzac Livestock Ventures at Gbeganu along Bida road. 

 

Experimental Diets 

Five experimental diets were formulated using each of the test ingredients (yellow maize, white 

sorghum, red sorghum, grey millet and brown millet), mixed with other ingredients which 

included soya bean meal (full soya), fishmeal, wheat offal, bone meal, limestone, salt, lysine, 

methionine and vitamin premix. They were thoroughly mixed. The diet containing maize, which 

was the control diet, was labeled T1. The diets containing white sorghum, red sorghum, grey 

millet and brown millet were labeled T2, T3, T4 and T5 respectively. Two categories of the diets 

were formulated: starter diet which contained 23 % CP and fed to the birds from 1st- 4th week 

(Table 1), and finisher diet which contained 20 % CP and provided from 5th- 8th week (Table 2).  

 

    Table 1. Gross composition of experimental starter diet 

 

Ingredient (%)  

 

    

             Treatments______________________  

T1  T2 T3 T4 T5 

 

Maize 

 

49.9 

 

- 

 

- 

 

- 

 

- 

White Sorghum - 49.9 - - - 

Red Sorghum - - 49.9 - - 

Grey Millet - - - 49.9 - 

Brown Millet  - - - 49.9 

Soya Bean Meal 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 

Fish Meal 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Wheat Offal 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Bone Meal 

Limestone 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

Salt 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

 *Premix 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Lysine 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Methionine 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Total  100 100 100 100 100 

Calculated value (%): 

Crude protein 

Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg) 

 

22.14 

2764.65 

 

21.64 

2733.71 

 

21.64 

2733.71 

 

22.64 

2370.44 

 

22.64 

2370.44 

  

* Agri-Mix: A – 12,000,000IU; Vitamin B1 – 2,000mg; Vitamin B6 – 3,500mg; Vitamin B12 – 20mg; Vitamin D3 –                                  

3,000,000IU; Vitamin E – 30,000mg; Vitamin K3 – 2,500mg; Antioxidanrt – 125,000mg, Biotin – 80mg; Calpan – 10,000mg, 

Choline Chloride – 200,000mg; Cobalt – 250mg, Copper – 8,000mg, Folic acid – 1,000mg; Iodine – 1,200mg; Iron – 40,000mg; 

Manganese – 70,000mg; Niacin – 40,000mg; Selenium – 250mg; Zinc – 60,000mg.                

T1 = Yellow Maize based diet, T2 = White Sorghum based diet   T3 = Red 

Sorghum based diet, T4 = Grey Millet based diet,   T5 = Brown Millet based diet 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

39 

      Table 2. Gross Composition of experimental finisher diet 

 

Ingredients (%) 

 

                        Treatments________________________  

T1  T2 T3 T4 T5 

 

Yellow Maize 

 

59.0 

 

- 

 

- 

 

- 

 

- 

White Sorghum - 59.0 - - - 

Red Sorghum - - 59.0 - - 

Grey Millet - - - 59.0 - 

Brown Millet  - - - 59.0 

Soya Bean Meal 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 

Fish Meal 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Wheat Offal 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Bone Meal 

Limestone 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

2.0 

0.7 

Salt 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

 *Premix  0.5  0.5  0.5   0.5   0.5 

Salt  0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Lysine 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Methionine 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Total 

 

Calculated values: 

100 100 100 100 100 

CP (%) 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 

Energy kcal/kg 3460.7 3496.5 3446.2 3400.6 3453.6 

*Agri-Mix: A – 12,000,000IU; Vitamin B1 – 2,000mg; Vitamin B6 – 3,500mg; Vitamin B12 – 20mg; Vitamin D3 – 3,000,000IU; 

Vitamin E – 30,000mg; Vitamin K3 – 2,500mg; Antioxidanrt – 125,000mg, Biotin – 80mg; Calpan – 10,000mg, Choline 

Chloride – 200,000mg; Cobalt – 250mg, Copper – 8,000mg, Folic acid – 1,000mg; Iodine – 1,200mg; Iron – 40,000mg; 

Manganese – 70,000mg; Niacin – 40,000mg; Selenium – 250mg; Zinc – 60,000mg. 

T1 = Yellow Maize based diet 

T2 = White Sorghum based diet 

T3 = Red Sorghum based diet 

T4 = Grey Millet based diet 

T5 = Brown Millet based diet 
 

 

Experimental Birds and Management 

Before the arrival of the chicks, the pen was thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Although well 

ventilated, adjustable air-resistant nylons were used to cover all the sides to ensure warmth. The 

floor was also well insulated with a thick layer of wood shavings upon which were laid sheets of 

papers to prevent injury to their eyes and to guard against swallowing of wood shafts. On arrival, 

they were immediately taken into the pen, already adequately heated using charcoal, to provide 

warmth for brooding. They were immediately served water containing glucose as anti-stress. 

Feed and clean water were supplied without restriction (ad libitum). Vaccination routine was 

carried out as follows: 

2nd week - Lasota 1st dose 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

40 

3rd week - Gumboro  

5th week - Lasota 2nd dose 
 

 

Medication was also made available, through drinking water. Vitalyte® was frequently 

served to prevent stress and improve appetite. Virucine® and Pox Proline® were used for the 

control and treatment of fowl pox. Amprolium® was administered to prevent coccidiosis and 

Neo-Furaseryl Plus was given when scouring was noticed. 

Fresh water was provided every morning after washing the drinkers. Prompt removal and 

replacement of wet litter ensured a dry pen at all time which, coupled with good ventilation, 

prevented accumulation of ammonia and foul odor in and around the house. Throughout the trial, 

proper hygiene in and around the house helped to keep disease outbreak at bay. 

 

Data Collection 

 

Feed Intake 

The amount of feed intake was determined on a weekly basis. A pre-determined quantity of feed 

was always served. At the end of the week, the left-over weight was subtracted from the amount 

feed served. 

 

Body Weight 

The birds were weighed (initial weight) at the start of the trial and weekly interval throughout the 

experimental period. The weekly body weight for the treatment groups were obtained 

collectively and divided by the number of birds in the groups to obtain the mean weekly weight 

for the treatment. 

 

Body Weight Gain  

The body weight gain for each week was obtained by the differences between the body weight 

for the preceding week and body weight for the current week. Body weight gain at the starter 

phase was determined using KERRO weighing scale with model number BL-P1D/20001. At the 

finisher phase, Digital weighing indicator with model number XK3190-A12E was used. 

 

Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) 

The feed conversion ratio was determined on a weekly basis by dividing the quantity of feed 

consumed by the weight gain of the birds in each replicate in grams, using the following 

expression as cited by Malik et al. (2010): 

 

Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) =  

 

Estimated Cost of Production 

The costs of feeding one bird per treatment for 8 weeks were determined by: 

 Multiplying the proportions of each ingredient in the diets with the total feed consumed 

to obtain the actual quantity (kg) of the ingredient consumed. 

 Multiplying the price of each ingredient with the quantity (kg) of that ingredient for the 

different experimental diets. 

 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

41 

Statistical Analysis 

All the data obtained were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Statistical 

Analysis System (SAS, 2010) and significant means were separated using Duncan’s Multiple 

Range Test (Duncan, 1955). 

 

RESULTS 

Growth performance of broilers fed diets containing test ingredients at the starter phase  

Table 3 showed results on growth performance of broiler chicks placed on diets containing the 

test ingredients at the starter phase. The result shows that there were no significant (p>0.05) 

differences in initial body weight of the birds at the beginning of the experiment and at the final 

stage of the starter phase (4th week). Also, there were no significant (p>0.05) differences in the 

feed intake and feed conversion ratio among all the treatments. Consequently, there was no 

significant difference in the growth pattern of the birds at the starter phase. However, numerical 

differences in total weight gains among all the treatments indicated an improvement in growth of 

birds in Treatment 5 over those in Treatment 1. Birds in treatment 2 (T2) recorded the lowest 

(817.27g) weight gain. For feed intake, Treatment 5 was consistent for recording a higher 

numerical feed consumption value than Treatment 1. Treatment 3 has the least feed intake. The 

best (1.55) feed conversion ratio was recorded in birds fed treatments 1 and 5. There were no 

mortalities throughout the feeding period. 

 

Table 3. Growth performance of broiler fed diets containing test ingredients at starter phase 

 

Parameter    Treatment    SEM p value 

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 

Initial weight (g) 41.12 40.17 41.61 38.88 38.21 2.05 0.46 

Final weight (g) 899.15 857.44 867.75 862.37 898.22 9.31 0.09 

Total weight gain (g) 858.03 817.27 826.15 823.47 860.01 10.48 0.12 

Total feed intake (g) 1326.60 1330.37 1305.37 1318.27 1334.40 23.15 0.08 

Average daily weight gain (g) 30.64 29.18 29.50 29.41 30.71 0.37 0.06 

Average daily feed intake (g) 47.38 47.51 46.62 47.08 47.66 0.83 0.15 

Feed Conversion Ratio 

Mortality (%) 

1.55 

0.00 

1.63 

0.00 

1.58 

0.00 

1.60 

0.00 

1.55 

0.00 

0.31 

0.01 

0.25 

0.00 
abc

 Means of the same row with different superscript were significantly (P<0.05) different 

SEM = Standard Error of Mean 

LSD = Least Significant Difference  

NS = Not Significant 
 

T1 = Yellow Maize based diet 

T2 = White Sorghum based diet 

T3 = Red Sorghum based diet 

T4 = Grey Millet based diet 

T5 = Brown Millet based diet 

 

Growth Performance of Broilers fed Test Ingredients at the Finisher Phase  

Table 4 showed the result of growth performance of the birds at the finisher phase (4 – 8 weeks). 

Similar to starter phase, there were no significant (p>0.05) differences across all the treatment 

values at the finisher phase. However, Treatment 2 appeared to show a little improvement in 

growth at the final phase above the record in the starter phase. This prompted it to rank relatively 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

42 

equal in total weight gain with Treatment 4, although both still record the lowest numerical 

values. Numerically, Treatment 5 still recorded the highest value in total weight gain. Like in the 

starter phase, it was higher than Treatment 1, which was subsequently higher than Treatments 2, 

3 and 4. Daily feed intake across the treatments revealed progressive growth pattern of the birds. 

Birds in Treatment 2 consumed highest, with resultant improvement in their growth, though way 

below Treatment 3. Feed intake in Treatment 5 was higher than in Treatment 1, and so there was 

a resultant higher body weight. While the feed conversion ratio of Treatment 5 and Treatment 1 

remained the same, it differed for Treatments 2, 3 and 4.   

 

Table 4.  Growth performance of broilers fed diets containing test ingredients at finisher phase 

 

Parameters   Treatment   SEM p value 

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 

Initial Weight (g) 899.15 857.44 867.75 862.37 898.22 9.32 0.00 

Final Weight (g) 2730.74 2586.93 2625.63 2592.09 2735.58 40.08 0.00 

Total Weight Gain (g) 1831.59 1729.49 1757.88 1729.72 1837.36 32.65 0.62 

Total Feed Intake (g) 4444.42 4503.59 4475.23 4383.35 4464.44 50.09 0.25 

Av. Daily Weight Gain (g) 65.41 61.77 62.67 61.78 65.62 1.79 0.25 

Av. Daily Feed Intake (g) 158.73 160.82 159.83 156.55 159.44 1.17 0.62 

Feed Conversion Ratio (g) 

Mortality (%) 

2.43 

3.33a 

2.60 

0.00ab 

2.55 

0.00ab 

2.53 

3.33a 

2.43 

3.33a 

0.06 

0.20 

0.58 

0.00 
abc

 Means of the same row with different superscript were significantly (P<0.05) different 

SEM = Standard Error of Mean 

LSD = Least Significant Difference  

NS = Not Significant 
 

T1 = Yellow Maize based diet 

T2 = White Sorghum based diet 

T3 = Red Sorghum based diet 

T4 = Grey Millet based diet 

T5 = Brown Millet based diet 

 

Cost Benefit of Broiler Chickens fed Diets Containing Test Ingredients   

Table 5 showed the cost benefit of broiler chickens fed diets containing test ingredients. Cost of 

feed production per kilogram was significantly (p<0.05) highest in Treatment 1. Although all the 

remaining treatments did not vary significantly, it was observed that dietary treatment 2 had the 

cheapest cost of production. Total cost of investment also varied relative to the cost of feed per 

kilogram. In all, Treatment 1 attracted significantly (p<0.05) highest cost of investment. 

However, unlike in the case of cost of feed per kg, Treatment 5 had the lowest cost of total 

investment. Gross return did not vary significantly (p>0.05) across the treatment means. 

However, Treatment 5 had a higher return than Treatment 1, which in turn was higher than all 

other treatments. For the gross profit, Treatment 5 emerged significantly (p<0.05) highest. It is 

followed by Treatment 2 which was also significantly (p<0.05) higher than Treatment 3. 

Although Treatment 4 had a higher profit margin, it was not significantly (p>0.05) different from 

Treatment 2. 

 

 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

43 

Table 5. Economics of production of broiler chickens fed diets containing test ingredients   

 

Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 

Cost at day old (N) 230 230 230 230 230 

Final Weight (kg) 2.73 2.59 2.63 2.59 2.74 

Total feed Intake (kg) 5.77 5.93 5.79 5.70 5.79 

Cost of feed/kg (N) 151.66 141.44 142.89 146.26 142.37 

Total cost of feed intake (N) 875.08 838.74 827.33  833.68 824.32 

Fixed Cost (N) 430 430 430  430 430 

Total Investment (N) 1535.08 1498.74 1487.33 1493.68 1484.32 

Cost of bird/kg (N) 800 800 800 800 800 

Gross return (N) 

Gross profit (N) 

2184 

648.92 

2072 

573.26 

2104 

616.67 

2072 

578.32 

2192 

707.68 
Total Cost of Feed Intake     =     Cost of feed/kg x Total feed intake 

Total Investment     =     Fixed cost   +   Total cost of feed intake   +   Cost at day old 

Gross Return     =     Final weight   x   Cost of bird/kg 

Gross Profit     =     Gross return   –   Total investment 

 

DISCUSSION 

Growth performance of broiler chickens fed diets containing test ingredients  

The results showed no significant (P<0.05) differences in growth among the experimental diets 

at both starter and finisher phases. This compared well with the results obtained by Akinmoladun 

et al. (2015) when they fed broilers different energy sources using maize as the control. Adamu 

et al. (2006) also reported no significant side effect on growth when sorghum completely 

replaced maize in poultry diets. The result is also supported by Medegu et al. (2010) who 

reported no significant differences in the Dry Matter (DM) intake in chick fed sorghum and 

millet as replacement for maize. 

The current study shows that initial weight, final weight, feed intake and feed conversion 

ratio of the birds did not differ (p<0.05) significantly for the various treatments at the two phases. 

Although this is in complete harmony with Medegu et al. (2010) who had reported similar results 

earlier, it is however noteworthy that Treatment 3 which contained red sorghum outperformed 

Treatment 2 which is white-sorghum based, in the two phases. This does not agreed with the 

findings of Selle et al. (2013) and Liu et al. (2015) which revealed that white sorghum-based 

diets had a better performance than chickens offered red sorghum-based diets. The result also 

contradicts the assertion of Freitas (2014) that white sorghum was easier for animals to digest 

than the red variety.  

One probable cause for this incongruence may be that the red sorghum procured for this 

experiment was very low, or absent in, tannin content. If this is the case, then it will compare 

favorably with the report of Jacquie (2015) that there is now availability of tannin-free sorghum 

which tremendously improves its value in poultry diets. Also, according to Rooney et al. (2000), 

tannin-free red sorghum had higher total phenols than white sorghum. 

 

Cost benefit of broiler chickens fed diets containing test ingredients             
Economics of production analysis indicated that the highest cost per kilogram of feed belongs to 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

44 

the Control diet (Treatment 1) and the cheapest was Treatment 2, closely followed by Treatment 

5. Treatment 5 recorded the highest profit margin. From the outset, it would appear that 

Treatment 1 had a profit margin higher than Treatments 2, 3 and 4. However, when the gross 

profit is compared with the total cost of investment in each treatment, it becomes obvious that all 

the studied alternatives performed better than the Control (Treatment 1) in terms of economic 

gain. The cost differentials in the study can be explained from two standpoints – current market 

prices of the test ingredients at the time of their purchase and their nutrient contents, particularly 

energy. A kilogram of yellow maize sold for N73.33 while grey and brown millets cost N66.67. 

White sorghum was the lowest in price at N53.33 per kilogram followed by red sorghum at N60 

per kilogram. Consequently, white sorghum offered the lowest cost of production, but this 

advantage is overshadowed by brown millet which has a higher content of both crude protein and 

energy. Despite costing more than white sorghum and included at a level higher than all other 

test ingredients in their various dietary preparations, it considerably reduced the quantity of soya 

beans needed for balancing dietary treatment 5 (Tables 3.2 and 3.3). This led to the eventual drop 

in the cost per kilogram of Treatment 5 since soya bean meal, being a protein source in the diets, 

costs a whooping N180 per kilogram. The economic parameter obtained in this study compares 

favorably with the result obtained by Gebeyew et al. (2015) who reported in a similar study that 

sorghum was more profitable in replacement for maize in broiler diet. In a more incisive study, 

Yunusa et al. (2015) deduced that the two varieties of millet (Gero and Dauro) were a better 

substitute to maize in terms of performance and economic advantage. 

 

CONCLUSION 

From this study there was reduced cost of production when maize was replaced with sorghum 

and millet. The cereals were less expensive compared to maize and they were equally readily 

available. It is however safe to conclude that millet and sorghum can completely replace yellow 

maize in broiler diets without adverse effects. Nevertheless, birds fed brown millet (Gero) had 

the highest performance and best cost benefit and so, recommended as a replacement for maize 

in broiler diets. It is also recommended that further studies should be conducted on other poultry 

species such as layers and turkeys, to ascertain the suitability of these alternative energy sources. 

Government should intervene in form of grants and subsidies to farmers, to encourage large scale 

production of millet and sorghum. 
 

REFERENCES 

Adamu, M.S., Nafarnda, W.D., Iliya, D.S., & Kubkomawa, H.I. (2006). Replacing value of 

yellow  sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) for maize in broiler diets. Global Journal of 

Agricultural Science,  5(2), 151-154.  

 

Akinmoladun, O.F., Onibi, G.E., & Lamuwagun, A.T. (2015). Performance and economics of 

productions of broiler chicks fed diets of varying energy levels. Proceedings of 40th 

Conferences  of Nigerian Society for Animal Production, 15th – 19th March, 

NAPRI/ABU Zaria. Pp. 399-402. 

 

Anyaegbu, B.C., Okunkwo, D.N., Nosike, R.J., & Orji, M.C. (2018). Growth performance of 

starter  broilers fed processed cocoyam (Xanthsoma sagittifolium) as energy source in 

place of maize. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 44(3), 230-237.  

 

Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range tests and multiple F-tests Biometrics, 11, 1-42  



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

45 

Ezieshi, E.V., Okhuenbie, I.F., Ezennabike, C.C., & Olomu, J.M. (2004). Comparative 

performances of broiler chicks fed graded levels of palm kernel oaks and maize offal. 

Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of Nigerian Society for Animal Production 

(NSAP). Pp. 253-256. 

 

Frietas, E.R., Raquel, D.C., Nasciments A.J.N, Watanabe, P.H., & Lopes, I.R.V. (2014). 

Complete replacement of corn by white or red sorghum in Japanese quails feeds. 

Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 16(3), 333-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-

635x1603333-336  

 

Gebeyew, K., Mohamed, A., & Urge, M. (2015). The effect of replacing maize with sorghum on 

carcass characteristics and economics feasibility on commercial broiler chicken. Poultry, 

Fish and Wildlife Science, 3(1), 1-5.  
 

Googlearth. (2013). Minna, Nigeria - A Satellite Image. Retrieved from www.googlearth.com 

 

Igboeli, G. (2000). Animal production and Agriculture in the new millennium. Nigeria Journal 

of Animal Production, 26, 1-3.  

 

Jacquie, J. (2015). Common feed ingredients in poultry diets. Retrieved from 

https://articles.extension.org/pages /68432  

 

Liu, S.Y., Fox, G., Khoddami, A., Neilson, K.A., Truong, H.H., & Moss, A.F. (2015). Grain 

sorghum: a conundrum for chicken-meat production. Agriculture, 5(4), 1224-1251.   

 

Malik, A.A., Balogun, O.O., & Dikko, A.H. (2010). An evaluation of the effect of storage of a 

locally  produced and natural vitamin premise on the performance of layers hens. 

Journals of Agriculture, Forestry and Social Sciences, 8(1), 208-214.  

 

McAnlis, C. (2019). White Meat Vs. Red Meat. Retrieved from https://www.fitday.com 
 

Medegu, C.I., Kwari, I.D., Igwebuike J., Nkama I., & Mohammed I.D. (2010). Performance and 

economics of production of broiler chickens fed sorghum and millet as replacement for 

maize in the semi-arid zone of Nigeria. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North 

America, 11, 445-450. 

 

Mohamed, A., Urge, M., & Gebeyew, K. (2015). Effects of replacing maize with sorghum on 

growth and feed efficiency of commercial broiler chicken. Journal of Veterinary Science 

& Technology, 6(3), 1-5.  

 

Ndanusa, M. (2016). Effect of replacement of maize with soaked mango seed kernel meal on the 

growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. An undergraduate 

thesis in the Department of Animal Production, Federal University of Technology, 

Minna, Niger State. P 3.      

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-635x1603333-336
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-635x1603333-336
https://articles.extension.org/pages%20/68432
https://www.fitday.com/


https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

46 

Nosike, R.J., Nwakpu, O.F., & Okocha, C.N. (2018). Phenotypic correlations between 

biological markers and growth traits in Arbor acres broiler chicken strain. Nigerian 

Journal of Animal Productions, 45(2), 21-28.  

 

Oke, F.O., Oluwatosin, O.O., & Adeyemi, O.A. (2016). Performance Characteristics and 

Nutrient Digestibility of Finisher Turkeys Fed Diets Containing Malted Sorghum with 

Varying Combinations of Additives. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 43(1), 77.  

 

Oyawoye, E.O., Joseph, D.S., & Okurerie, A.M. (2017). Replacement value of sundried cassava 

peel meal for maize in broiler ration. Proceedings on 42nd Annual Conference Nigerian 

Society for Animal Production. Pp. 434-437. 

 

Rooney, L.W., & Waniska, R.D., (2000). Sorghum food and industrial utilization. In: Smith, 

C.W., Frederiksen, R.A. (Eds). Sorghum: Origin, History, Technology and Production. 

Wiley, New York. Pp. 689-729.  

 

SAS. (2010). Statistical Analysis System SAS/STAT 9.2 user guide. SAS Institute 

Incorporation, Cary, North Carolina, USA.  

 

Selle, P.H., Liu, S.Y., & Cowieson A.J. (2013). Steam-pelleting temperatures, grain variety, 

feed form and protease supplementation of mediumly ground sorghum-based broiler 

diets: Influences on growth performance, relative gizzard weights, nutrient utilization, 

starch and nitrogen digestibility. Animal Production Science, 53, 378-387.   

 

Taste Inc. (2019). Battle of the Meats: Chicken Vs. Beef. Retrieved from 

https://www.tasteinc.com 

 

Ukomu, E.C., Ohanaka, A.U.C., Uzegbu, H.O., & Oduehie D.N. (2018). Response of finisher 

broiler birds fed graded levels of yam peel meal as an energy source in maize-based diet. 

Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, 45(2), 185-188.  

 

Yisa, G., Edache, J.A., Kamshiwe, B. Yaro, B., & Okwechime, A. (2017). Comparative effects 

of different cereal grains on growth performance of broiler starter chickens. 42nd Annual 

Conference of Nigerian Society for Animal Production. Pp. 457-459. 

 

Yunusa, Y., Doma, U.D., Zahraddeen, D., Abubakar, S.B., Umar, A., & Isah, A. (2015). 

 Performance  and economics of production of broiler chickens fed different 

dietary energy sources. Asian Journal of Poultry Science, 9, 41-49.  

 

 

Copyrights  

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the 

journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative 

Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 

https://www.tasteinc.com/

