<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJAS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Animal Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2161-7597</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojas.2022.121011</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJAS-114914</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Mineral Composition and Effect of Biochar on Preweaning Reproductive and Growth Performance in Cavy (&lt;i&gt;Cavia porcellus&lt;/i&gt;)
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Christèle</surname><given-names>Kenne Nouboussi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Fernand</surname><given-names>Tendonkeng</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nathalie</surname><given-names>Mweugang Ngouopo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Emile</surname><given-names>Miégoué</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dieu-Nedort</surname><given-names>Djoufack</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Thierry</surname><given-names>Douglas Ndongo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hamadou</surname><given-names>Ousmane</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>J.</surname><given-names>Gwladys Nkana Kontchiachou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cédric</surname><given-names>Brailly Kwayep Nyah</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mama</surname><given-names>Mouchili</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Pamo</surname><given-names>T. Etienne</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Faculty of Science, University of Ngaoundere, Ngaoundere, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural Sciences, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Institute of Agricultural Research for Development, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>08</day><month>11</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>01</issue><fpage>145</fpage><lpage>157</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>14,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2021</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>24,</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>27,</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  In order to contribute to the improvement of the knowledge on the
   valorization of biochar as a feed additive in livestock, three biochar made from cassava peelings, bean tops and cocoa pods were manufactured. After analyzing their mineral composition, they were incorporated into rations at a rate of 0.8% in order to evaluate their effects on the performance of reproduction and pre-weaning growth in cavy (Cavia porcellus). The trials were conducted in the Research Unit of Animal Production and Nutrition (URPRONAN) of the University of Dschang, on 96 adult local breed cavy (from the first generation), including 80 females and 16 males aged 4 months and with an average weight of 400 &#177; 0.25 g. After 2 weeks of adaptation in the rearing boxes at the farm, the females were put in reproduction for a period of 31 days, the animals were divided into 04 batches of 20 females and 4 males. The animals in the control lot were fed a compound feed without biochar (T) while the others were fed the compound feed containing 0.8% of cassava peel biochar (EM), 0.8% of bean tops biochar (FH) and 0.8% of cocoa pod husks biochar (CC) respectively. The results of this study showed that the ash content (26%) and macro-element concentration were higher in the bean husk charcoal compared to the other charcoals and the trace elements were more concentrated in the cassava peel charcoal. The best fertility rate (87.5%) was obtained in animals receiving the ration containing organic cocoa pod charcoal. The highest abortion rate (63.16%) was obtained in the batch of animals receiving the ration containing organic bean husk charcoal. Pre-weaning mortality rates were comparable between the different rations. Piglet weights at birth were comparable between the different rations. At weaning, the highest average weight of the kids was recorded with the ration containing the organic bean charcoal (197.25 &#177; 46.9 g). The highest ADG (4.82 &#177; 0.74 g/d) and TG (101.25 g) were recorded in the batch of animals receiving the FH ration. Thus, the incorporation of 0.8% of the powder of organic coals seems to have adverse effects on reproductive performance. On the other hand, these coals significantly improve the pre-weaning growth performance in cavy.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Feed Additives</kwd><kwd> Biochar</kwd><kwd> Cavy</kwd><kwd> Ingestion</kwd><kwd> Reproduction</kwd><kwd> Pre-Weaning Growth</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>In Africa in general and in Cameroon in particular, the imbalance observed between population growth and animal protein supply leads to increased malnutrition in most low-income families [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref3">3</xref>]. To fight against this scourge, the development and popularization of mini-breeding offer an alternative source of protein as much as they would contribute globally to the country’s economy through the promotion of employment, trade and the preservation of biodiversity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref4">4</xref>]. Thus, caviar farming, which does not require large initial investments, has the characteristics of an economically profitable mini-farm that can effectively participate in the fight for food security [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref5">5</xref>]. Despite its potential for meeting these needs, animal feed remains a real handicap for improving its production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref5">5</xref>] since it represents more than 70% of production costs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref6">6</xref>]. One of the possible solutions is the use of fodder legumes and other non-conventional protein sources whose nutritional value varies very little according to the seasons [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref3">3</xref>]. However, it has been observed that animals do not make the most of these forages, due to the poor health of their intestinal flora. Like ruminants, cavy harbor a large microbial population that ensures digestion and maintenance of microbial activity that requires a continuous supply of minerals to ensure proper functioning of the cecum. Yet, besides C, H, O, N, and S, mineral elements (Mg, Ca, K, and P) are also present on the surfaces of biochar [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref7">7</xref>]. It is widely documented that, vitamins and minerals play an important role in animal growth and physiological functions, as well as reproductive performance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref8">8</xref>]. Phosphorus and magnesium are essential skeletal components and are also involved in microbial fermentations in the rumen flora. Iron, present in hemoglobin, transports oxygen to tissue and muscle cells. It is essential for the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the primary source of body energy. Selenium (Se) is necessary for growth, fertility of animals and prevention of various diseases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref9">9</xref>]. Previous studies have shown positive effects of Canarium schweinfurthii Engl kernel charcoal used as growth promoters in birds [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref10">10</xref>]. The biochar modified feed has shown potential in controlling zoonotic pathogens in poultry [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref11">11</xref>]; reducing methane emissions in the rumen of cattle [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref12">12</xref>] and goat [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref13">13</xref>]. This charcoal could also bind feed toxins [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref10">10</xref>] that are either excreted in feces or degraded by certain organisms in the animal’s gut microbiota. Based on previous results, the use of biochar in guinea pig diets could improve digestibility and therefore production performance. As very little information exists to this effect, the objective of the present study is to determine the mineral composition of cassava peelings, cocoa pod husks and bean tops biochar in order to evaluate their effects on the reproductive performance and pre-weaning growth of cavy.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Area</title><p>This study was conducted between February and April 2021 in the Animal Production and Nutrition Research Unit (URPRONAN) of the University of Dschang. Located in the highlands of West Cameroon at an altitude of 1410 m, at longitude East 09˚5' - 10˚06' and latitude North 5˚36' - 5˚44'. This region receives between 1500 and 2000 mm of water per year, with temperatures ranging from 10˚C to 25˚C. The climate is equatorial with a short dry season from mid-November to mid-March and a long rainy season from mid-March to mid-November.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Animal Material and Housing</title><p>For this trial, ninety-six (96) adult cavies were placed in a completely randomized setup, i.e., 80 females and 16 males of comparable weight (400 &#177; 0.25) distributed in four identical boxes of size (2.5 m &#215; 0.5 m), delimited by plated counter. Each box contained 4 males and 20 females conducted for 31 days. The floor of each lodge was lined with white wood shavings, which were renewed weekly to avoid the accumulation of feces and urine. Each lodge was equipped with a heating device, a plastic drinker and two wooden feeders and covered with a wire mesh to avoid the introduction of predators.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Plant Material</title><p>The plant material consisted of agricultural residues (cassava peelings of variety 8034; cocoa pod husks of variety forastero and bean tops of variety GLP) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) harvested in the department of Menoua, for the manufacture of the different organic charcoals. These agricultural residues were chosen because of their accessibility and local availability.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Processing of the Different Biochar</title><p>The biochar used was obtained by slow pyrolysis of three plant residues that were chosen because of their accessibility and local availability. The different biochar obtained were crushed and sieved with a 2 mm mesh sieve before being incorporated at 0.8% in the compound feed.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Experimental Rations</title><p>The ration was formulated according to the nutritional requirements of the cavy, and the ingredients were purchased from dealers of agricultural by-products. A single feed was composed with these ingredients (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) and to this feed was added 0.8% of biochar powder as a feed additive to make the different experimental rations. The different rations were then pelleted before being fed to the animals.</p><p>The daily pelleted ration served was 0.15 g/g PV for each treatment consisting of the following:</p><p>• T: basal diet without charcoal (control);</p><p>• EM: basal diet containing 0.8% cassava peelings charcoal powder;</p><p>• CC: basal diet containing 0.8% charcoal powder of cocoa pod husks;</p><p>• FH: basal diet containing 0.8% charcoal powder of bean tops.</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Evaluation of the Mineral Composition of Biochar</title><p>The powder of each biochar (100 g) was collected and analyzed at the laboratory of Environmental Analysis of the University of Laval-Quebec for the determination of the mineral composition following the procedure described by AOAC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref14">14</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Evaluation of the Effects of the Different Biochar Powders in the Ration on the Reproductive Performance of the Cavy</title><p>A digestibility test was previously carried out with six organic charcoals (plantain peelings, cassava peelings, cocoa pod husks, coconut husks, maize cobs and bean tops) compared to the basal diet. Three charcoals (cassava peelings, cocoa pod husks and bean tops) were selected for this trial. Ninety-six (96) adult cavies were placed in a completely randomized design. At the beginning of the trial, the number of breeding females as well as their fasting weight was recorded and these females were distributed homogeneously in each pen where they followed several successive stages: mating—gestation—parturition—lactation—weaning of the young. During gestation, the number of females that aborted was recorded. The number of females that gave birth and the date of parturition were then recorded. At birth, the number of stillborn and live-born kids was recorded.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Centesimal composition of the feed</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ingredients</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Quantities (kg)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Corn</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cassava</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pellets</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pennisetum purpureum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soybean cake</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cotton cake</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >08</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Palm kernel cake</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fish meal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bone meal</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >shellfish</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Concentrate 10% *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Molasses</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Chemical composition</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dry matter (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Organic matter (% DM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crude protein (% DM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fat (% DM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crude cellulose (% DM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ash (% DM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Digestible energy (kcal/kg DM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2900.46</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>*The analytical calculation of the 10% concentrate used shows 40% crude protein, 3% lysine, 1.7% methionine, 7% calcium, 1.8% phosphorus and 2100 kcal/kg metabolizable energy.</p><p>Then, the number of dead kids before weaning and the number of weaned kids were also recorded. The amount of feed served (between 7:00 and 9:00 am) was maintained in pregnant and lactating pigs until weaning (21 days after birth).</p><p>The following reproductive parameters were evaluated:</p><p>&#173; Fertility or parturition rate = (females with mid-calf)/(females mated) &#215; 100;</p><p>&#173; Fecundity rate = (stillbirths + live births)/(females bred) &#215; 100;</p><p>&#173; Net fecundity rate = (live-born young)/(females bred) &#215; 100;</p><p>&#173; Litter size = (pups born)/(females in mid-calf);</p><p>&#173; Viability at birth = (live births)/(live births) &#215; 100;</p><p>&#173; Weaning viability or weaning rate = (weaned)/(live-born) &#215; 100;</p><p>&#173; Pre-weaning mortality rate = (kids dead before weaning)/(kids born alive) &#215; 100.</p></sec><sec id="s2_8"><title>2.8. Evaluation of the Effects of Different Biochar Powders in the Diet on the Pre-Weaning Growth Performance of Cavy</title><p>At birth, each newborn was identified with numbered loops attached to the ear. Furthermore, at farrowing, the dams were weighed as well as their young. Also, during this breeding period, the weights of breeding females, during lactation and of the pups after birth were recorded weekly. These data were used to determine feed intake, weekly weight change, total weight gain (TG) (g) and average daily gain (ADG).</p></sec><sec id="s2_9"><title>2.9. Statistical Analysis</title><p>Data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) following the general linear model (GLM). When significant differences existed between treatments, the means were separated by the Waller Duncan test at the 5% significance level [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref15">15</xref>]. The SPSS 26.0 analysis software was used.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Mineral Composition of the Different Biochar</title><p>The mineral composition of the different biochar produced shows that it varies with the nature of the substrate (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). The bean husk charcoal has the highest ash content (26%), while the lowest content is that of cocoa pods. Regarding macro-elements, Ca, K and P concentration was higher with bean husk biochar, and Na concentration was higher in cassava peel biochar. Cocoa pod shell biochar showed the highest Mg concentration. For trace elements, the concentration of Cd, Cr, Fe, Pb and Se was higher with cassava peel biochar, and that of B, Cu, Ni and Zn was higher in cocoa pod shell biochar. The bean husk biochar had the highest concentration of Mo.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Effects of Different Biochar Powders on Reproductive Performance</title><p>The average reproductive performances of females according to the type of charcoal included in the ration revealed (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>) that females receiving the rations containing the different biochar showed (except for fertility rate), the lowest fertility rates, net fertility rate, viability at birth compared to the control. Similarly, the abortion rate was very high (&gt;50%) in females receiving the ration containing the biochar.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Effects of Different Biochar Powders on Growth Performance in Cavy</title><sec id="s3_3_1"><title>3.3.1. Feed Intake in Female Breeders</title><p>The inclusion of the different biochar at 0.8% in the pelleted feed had no significant effect (p &gt; 0.05) on the ingestions of dry matter, organic matter, crude protein and crude cellulose in female breeders (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Mineral composition of biochar</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Chemical properties</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Cocoa pods husks (CC)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Bean tops (FH)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Cassava peelings (EM)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water retention capacity (g/g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.072</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.269</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% ash</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total nitrogen (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total carbon (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >C/N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Macro-elements</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Na concentration (cmol (+)/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >130.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ca concentration (cmol (+)/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >311.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1004.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >354.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mg concentration (cmol (+)/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >873.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >820.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >146.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K concentration (cmol (+)/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5950.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6289.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2527.85</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soufre (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total phosphorus (mg P/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54,573.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86421.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57,524.56</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Trace elements</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >B concentration (mg B/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1229.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >997.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >559.57</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cd concentration (mg Cd/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.69</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cr concentration (mg Cr/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cu concentration (mg Cu/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >829.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >629.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >495.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fe concentration (mg Fe/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4280.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53,668.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >172,115.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mo concentration (mg Mo/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >288.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ni concentration (mg Ni/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >397.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >122.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pb concentration (mg Pb/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >206.39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Se concentration (mg Se/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zn concentration (mg Zn/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >987.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >612.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >695.41</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Average reproductive performance in cavy according to the different rations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Treatments</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >EM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >FH</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fertility rate (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Litter size</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fecundity rate (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Net fecundity rate (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Viability at birth (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Viability at weaning (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abortion rate (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pre-weaning mortality rate (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Feed intake in cavy during gestation according to different rations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Ingestions (g DM/d/animal)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Treatments</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >SEM</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >p</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >CV</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >EM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >FH</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dry matter (DM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.730</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Organic matter (OM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.651</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crude protein (CP)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.102</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crude cellulose (CC)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.117</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.79</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>SEM: Standard Error on the Mean; p: Probability; CV: Coefficient of Variation; T: Feed without charcoal (control); EM: Feed containing 0.8 charcoal based on cassava peelings; CC: Feed containing 0.8 charcoal based on cocoa pod husks; FH: Feed containing 0.8 charcoal based on bean hulls.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3_2"><title>3.3.2. Variation in Weight of Lactating Females</title><p>The variation in the average weight of lactating females during the lactation period shows that, overall, the percentage of weight loss of animals fed the charcoal-containing diet remained low compared to that of animals fed the control ration (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). In fact, lactating cows receiving the EM ration recorded a weight gain of 0.91%; the CC ration, a loss of 9.87%; the FH ration, a loss of 1.49% and the control ration a loss of 21.71%.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3_3"><title>3.3.3. Weight Variation of Pre-Weaned Kids</title><p>The variation in the weight of the kids from birth to weaning, according to the rations (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) shows that, at birth and at weaning, the animals receiving the FH ration had the highest average weight (96 g and 197.25 g). The animals receiving the 0.8% cassava peel charcoal (EM) ration had the lowest average weight (79.83 g) at birth, while at weaning the lowest average weight (137.7 g) was recorded with the animals receiving the control ration (T). The animals receiving the FH ration had the highest weight gain (105.47%), followed by the animals receiving the EM ration (102.92%), then the animals receiving the CC ration (74%) and finally those receiving the control ration (52.49%).</p><p>Overall, we note that the animals receiving the feed containing organic charcoal showed the best results, especially those receiving charcoal made from bean tops.</p><p>The weight evolution of kids from birth to weaning according to the feed rations reveals that at birth, the different rations had no significant (p &gt; 0.05) effect on piglet weights (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>At weaning, the weights of animals receiving the control, EM, and CC rations were comparable and significantly lower than those receiving the FH ration.</p><p>The TG and ADG of the animals receiving the rations containing the biochar were significantly higher than the control, and the FH ration had the highest TG and ADG (p &lt; 0.05).</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>For this study, the organic biomasses used to make the different biochar are of</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Weight evolution of kids from birth to weaning according to feed rations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Characteristics</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Treatments</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >SEM</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >p</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >CV</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T (12)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >EM (6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >CC (4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >FH (4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth weight (g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.30<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.83<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.50<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.00<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.292</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.460</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Weaning weight (g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >137.70<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162.00<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >152.25<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >197.25<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.829</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total gains (g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.40<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.17<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.75<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101.25<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.940</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.45</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ADG (g/j)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.91<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.085<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.82<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.235</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.59</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>a; b; c; d: Means with the same letters on the same line are not significantly different at the 5% level; ADG: Average daily gain; SEM: Standard error of the mean; P: Probability, CV: Coefficient of variation; ( ): Number of kids.</p><p>plant origin (cassava peelings, cocoa pod husks and bean tops) and rich in carbon. In Cameroon, these residues are buried in the soil as an amendment or burned, resulting in environmental pollution [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref16">16</xref>]. However, in agronomy, these residues would present more advantages when used as biochar. Feedstock, temperature, temperature rise rate, and particle size can affect the physicochemical properties and quality of biochar [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref17">17</xref>]. However, biochar is predominantly composed of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen-oxygen, and sulfur [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref13">13</xref>]. Besides C, H, O, N, and S, mineral elements are also present on the surfaces of biochar [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref7">7</xref>]. The high mineral concentration in bean tops charcoal is thought to be related to the high ash content in the charcoal. Indeed, Zama et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref7">7</xref>] report that, increasing the ash content of coals favors increasing the concentration of Mg, Ca, K and P. which is in agreement with our results.</p><p>Regardless of the reproductive parameter studied, females receiving the control ration showed the best rates, (except for fertility rate, litter size, viability at weaning and pre-weaning mortality rate which are comparable between treatments) compared to the other treatments. Abortion rates of 50%; 62.50% and 63.16% respectively of EM; CC and FH charcoals were recorded. This rate remained very high compared to the 11.76% observed at the control ration. This high abortion rate could be explained by the fact that carbons generally have a high specific surface area which gives them a high adsorption capacity (A). This could also be related to the very high phosphorus level on the surface of biochar, which could affect the absorption of certain minerals. As demonstrated by Guivier (1974), quoted by Boussarie [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref18">18</xref>], an excess of phosphorus is very damaging because it increases the need for Mg, Ca, K by reducing their intestinal absorption by 50%. Overall, excess phosphorus in the diet is more harmful to the guinea pig than excess calcium, which is relatively well tolerated. It should also be noted that calcium deficiency at the end of gestation can result in difficult births and dystocia. Hence, the birth of unsustainable kids and very weak females those sometimes die a few days after giving birth. The highest abortion rate with the FH ration would be due to the high level of macro-elements (calcium, potassium and phosphorus) in the bean charcoal. These macronutrients could interfere with the absorption of trace elements such as copper, iodine, manganese, selenium and zinc, which have an important impact on reproduction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref19">19</xref>] and whose deficiency causes abortion [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref20">20</xref>]. Females receiving rations containing 0.8% charcoal (EM, CC and FH) had the lowest fecundity (44.44%, 43.75% and 42.11%) and net fecundity (33.33%, 25% and 21.05%). This would be related to the high rate of abortions recorded with these rations, which thus reduce the number of pups at farrowing. Therefore, the viability rate will be affected, as this rate is related to the number of viable pups at birth. Feed intake was comparable between the different treatments. These results are contrary to those obtained by Mekbungwan et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref21">21</xref>] who reported that biochar would significantly increase feed intake in kids when incorporated into the ration. On the other hand, the work of Kana et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref10">10</xref>] showed that biochar significantly decreased feed intake in poultry when incorporated into the ration. This difference would be explained by the fact that feed intake varies by animal species.</p><p>From farrowing to weaning, a low percentage of weight loss was recorded in lactating females fed a diet containing biochar. Since one of the particularities of cavy is the suckling of their offspring, this low weight loss would be related to the number of lactating animals. This is because milk secretion could continue after abortion. In contrast to the lactating females on the charcoal diet, those on the control diet showed a significant weight loss. This could be explained by the fact that during lactation, dams expend a lot of energy for milk production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref22">22</xref>]. In addition, the female has to make a lot of effort to cover the demand of the young [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref23">23</xref>]. She must therefore mobilize her body reserves to ensure satisfactory milk production, which would explain the observed weight loss. However, the slight weight gain in lactating females fed the EM diet could be explained by the presence of the more concentrated trace elements in this charcoal: iron (172,115.11 mg/kg) which is essential for the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the primary source of body energy; and selenium (53.21 mg/kg) which is necessary for growth, fertility and the prevention of various diseases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref9">9</xref>]. In this study, the average birth weights of the kids were comparable to each other. At weaning, the incorporation of biochar in the feed improved the weight gain of the kids. This is thought to be due to the fact that biochar increases digestion of the feed while providing a habitat for the gut microbiota to become more efficient [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref12">12</xref>]. The highest average weight (197.25 &#177; 46.9 g) obtained with the FH ration is thought to be related to the macronutrients involved in the microbial fermentations of the cecal flora. Thus, phosphorus and magnesium would be used by the caecal microbes for cellulose digestion and microbial protein synthesis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref19">19</xref>]. This results in increased nutrients from the coprophagic process in the guinea pig [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref18">18</xref>]. Like the ruminant, the proper inclusion of calcium in the ration is imperative for proper physiological function and growth of cavy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.114914-ref24">24</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>At the end of this study, it appears that:</p><p>• The mineral composition of biochar varies with the nature of the substrate;</p><p>• The supplementation of biochar as a feed additive (0.8%) in the guinea pig feed is detrimental to reproduction;</p><p>• Cassava peelings biochar is better for postpartum growth in cavy while bean tops biochar shows the best results for kid growth.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Nouboussi, C.K., Tendonkeng, F., Ngouopo, N.M., Mi&#233;gou&#233;, E., Djoufack, D.-N., Ndongo, T.D., Ousmane, H., Kontchiachou, J.G.N., Nyah, C.B.K., Mouchili, M. and Etienne, P.T. (2022) Mineral Composition and Effect of Biochar on Preweaning Reproductive and Growth Performance in Cavy (Cavia porcellus). Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 12, 145-157. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2022.121011</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.114914-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Metre, T.K. (2012) Possibilit&amp;#233s d’am&amp;#233lioration de l’&amp;#233levage de cobaye (Cavia porcellus L.) au Sud Kivu, &amp;#224 l’Est de la R&amp;#233publique D&amp;#233mocratique du Congo. M&amp;#233moire pr&amp;#233sent&amp;#233 en un dipl&amp;#244me de Master compl&amp;#233mentaire en gestion des ressources animales et v&amp;#233g&amp;#233tales en milieux tropicaux. Universit&amp;#233 de Li&amp;#232ge, Acad&amp;#233mie Universitaire Wollonie-Europe. 52 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Noumbissi, M.N.B., Tendonkeng, F., Zougou, T.G., Mi&amp;#233gou&amp;#233, E., Lemoufouet, J., Boukila, B. and Pamo, T.E. (2013) Effet de la compl&amp;#233mentation au Tithonia diversifolia sur l’&amp;#233volution du poids post-partum et la croissance pr&amp;#233-sevrage des cobayes (Cavia porcellus L.). Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25, Article No. 145. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/8/noum25145.htm</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mi&amp;#233gou&amp;#233, E., Tendonkeng, F., Lemoufouet, J., Noumbissi, M.N.B., Mweugang, N.N., Zougou, T.G., Nkouadjio, M.F., Boukila, B. and Pamo, T.E. (2016) Croissance pr&amp;#233-sevrage des cobayes nourris au Panicum maximum suppl&amp;#233ment&amp;#233 avec une ration contenant Arachis glabrata, Calliandra calothyrsus ou Desmodium intortum. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 10, 313-325. http://www.ifg-dg.org https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v10i1.24</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MINEPIA (2009) Sch&amp;#233ma directeur pour le d&amp;#233veloppement des fili&amp;#232res de l’&amp;#233levage au Cameroun Volume II: Cartographie des fili&amp;#232res. 211-228.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Niba, A.T., Meutchieye, F., Fon, D., Laisin, A.G., Taboh, H., Njakoi, H., Bela Tomo, A., Maass, B.L., Djikeng, A. and Manjeli, Y. (2012) Current Situation of Cavy Production in Cameroon: Challenges and Opportunities. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24, Article No. 194. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/niba24194.htm</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Defang, H.F., Keambou, T.C., Manjeli, Y., Teguia, A. and Pamo, T.E. (2014) Influence de la farine des feuilles de Leucaena leucocephala sur les performances de croissance des lapereaux. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 8, 1430-1437. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v8i4.7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zama, E.F., Zhu, Y.-G. and Reid, B.J. (2017) The Role of Biochar Properties in Influencing the Sorption and Desorption of Pb(II), Cd(II) and As(III) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.125</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kolodziej, A. and Jacyno, E. (2005) Effect of Selenium and Vitamin E Supplementation on Reproductive Performance of Young Boars. Archiv fur Tierzucht, 48, 68-75. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-48-68-2005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Krsk, P., Lahucky, R., K&amp;#252chenmeister, U., N&amp;#252rnberg, K., Palanska, O., Bahelka, I., Kuhn, G. and Ender, K. (2001) Effect of Dietary Organic Selenium and Vitamin E Supplementation on Post Mortem Oxidative Deterioration in Muscles of Pigs. Archiv fur Tierzucht, 44, 193-201. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-44-193-2001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kana, J.R., Fulefack, H.D., Teguia, A., Tchegne, B.D.T., Kana, Y. and Mongo, B. (2012) Effet activateur de croissance du charbon de noyaux de Canarium schweinfurthii Engl en substitution de l’antibiotique dans l’aliment du poulet de chair. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24, Article No. 131. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/8/kana24131.htm</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Prasai, T.P., Walsh, K.B., Midmore, D.J. and Bhattarai, S.P. (2017) Effect of Biochar, Zeolite and Bentonite Feed Supplements on Egg Yield and Excreta Attributes. Animal Production Science, 58, 1632-1641. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16290</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Leng, R.A., Preston, T.R. and Inthapanya, S. (2012) Biochar Reduces Enteric Methane and Improves Growth and Feed Conversion in Local “Yellow” Cattle Fed Cassava Root Chips and Fresh Cassava Foliage. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24, Article No. 199. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/11/leng24199.htm</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thuy Hang, L.T., Preston, T.R., Ba, N.X. and Dung, D.V. (2019) Effect of Biochar on Growth and Methane Emissions of Goats Fed Fresh Cassava Foliage. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 31, Article No. 67. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/5/thuyhang31067.html</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">A.O.A.C. (2000) Association of Official Analytical Chemists International (AOAC) Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Edition, AOAC International, Washington DC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Steel, R.G. and Torrie, J.H. (1980) Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw Hill Book, New York, 633 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Tendonkeng, F., Miegoue, E., Lemoufouet, J., Fogang, Z.B. and Pamo, T.E. (2018) Rice Straw Production and Potential Uses in Cameroon. In: Timayer, A. and Kadyrov, G., Eds., Rice and Rice Straw: Production, Cultivation and Uses, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, 1-53.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brewer, C.E., Chuang, V.J., Masiello, C.A., Gonnermann, H., Gao, X., Dugan, B., Driver, L.E., Panzacchi, P., Zygourakis, K. and Davies, C. (2014) New Approaches to Measuring Biochar Density and Porosity. Biomass and Bioenergy, 66, 176-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.059</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Boussarie</surname><given-names> D. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2000</year>)<article-title>Le cobaye, milieu de vie et alimentation</article-title><source> Le nouveau praticien v&amp;#233t&amp;#233rinaire</source><volume> 2</volume>,<fpage> 65</fpage>-<lpage>67</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hostetler, C.E., Kincaid, R.L. and Mirando, M.A. (2003) The Role of Essential Trace Elements in Embryonic and Fetal Development in Livestock. The Veterinary Journal, 166, 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00310-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brisson, J., Lefebvre, D., Gosselin, B., Petit, H. and Evans, E. (2003) Nutrition, alimentation et reproduction. In: Symposium sur les bovins laitiers, CRAAQ Centre de r&amp;#233f&amp;#233rences en agriculture et agroalimentaire de Quebec, Saint-Hyacinthe, 66 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mekbungwan, A., Yamauchi, K. and Sakaida, T. (2004) Intestinal Villus Histological Alterations in Piglets Fed Dietary Charcoal Powder Including Wood Vinegar Compound Liquid. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia, 33, 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0264.2004.00501.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Michel, C.L. and Bonnet, X. (2012) Influence of Body Condition on Reproductive Output in the Guinea Pig. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 317, 24-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.714</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Laurien-Kehnen, C. and Trillmich, F. (2003) Lactation Performance of Guinea Pigs (Cavia porcellus) Does Not Respond to Experimental Manipulation of Pup Demands. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 53, 145-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-002-0550-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.114914-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stein, H.H., Adeola, O., Cromwell, G.L., Kim, S.W., Mahan, D.C. and Miller, P.S. (2011) Concentration of Dietary Calcium Supplied by Calcium Carbonate Does Not Affect the Apparent Total Tract Digestibility of Calcium, But Decreases Digestibility of Phosphorus by Growing Pigs. Journal of Animal Science, 89, 2139-2144. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3522</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>