Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T00:18:36.959Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of protein source on the performance of suckling Chios ewes and Damascus goats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Hadjipanayiotou ,
E. Georghiades  and
A. Koumas
M. Hadjipanayiotou
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
E. Georghiades
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Koumas
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Get access

Abstract

Two trials, one with 36 twin-suckling Chios ewes and the other with 32 twin-suckling Damascus goats, were conducted to study the effect of protein source (fish meal v. soya-bean meal) on the pre-weaning milk yield of the dams, and the growth performance of their offspring. The control (C) concentrate mixture was similar in both trials, using soya-bean meal (SBM) (195 kg/t) as a source of supplemental protein. In the experimental diet (FME) of the ewe trial, SBM was replaced completely by fish meal (FM) whereas in the goat trial (FMG) 83 kg of SBM were replaced by 50 kg FM. Dry matter (DM) and crude protein (CP) degradation of the three isonitrogenous mixtures were measured using nylon bags incubated in the rumens (2, 6, 16, 24 and 32 h) of three Damascus goats. There were no significant differences between mixtures for DM and CP effective degradability at 005 per h outflow rate. At 0·08 per h outflow rate however, lower degradability values were obtained with the FME than with the C diet. There were differences in the effective CP degradability of SBM and FM used in the ewe trial, but the FM used in the goat trial was of higher CP degradability and similar to that of SBM. Ewes on FM produced more milk than those on the control diet (C 3·44 v. FME 3·84 kg/day), whereas milk yield of goats was similar in the two treatments (C 3·87 v. FMG 3·82 kg/day). There were no differences between treatments for ewe milk fat (C 44 v. FME 43 g/kg) or protein concentration (C 54 v. FME 53 g/kg). Goats on fish meal (FMG) produced milk of higher protein (C 37 v. FMG 40 g/kg), but of similar fat (C 42 v. FMG 43 g/kg) concentration to those on the SBM (C) diet. With the exception of the better conversion (milk: gain ratio) efficiency (C 5·17 v. FME 4·44) of male lambs sucking ewes on the FM diet, no other differences were observed in the performance of lambs or kids. Lambs consumed less milk than kids (lambs: males 4·69, females 5·13; kids: males 6·63, females 6·98) per unit of weight gain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 249 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council. 1984. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Supplement No. I. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Beever, D. E. and Thomson, D. J. 1981. The potential of protected proteins in ruminant nutrition. In Recent Developments in Ruminant Nutrition (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 82–97. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bines, J. A. 1976. Regulation of food intake in dairy cows in relation to milk production. Livestock Production Science 3: 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J. H. and Davis, C. L. 1980. Some aspects of feeding high producing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 63: 873–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economides, S. 1984. Estimating milk yield of dual purpose ewes. Technical Bulletin, Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus, No. 60.Google Scholar
Economidhs, S. 1986. Comparative studies of sheep and goats: milk yield and composition and growth rate of lambs and kids. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 106: 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekern, A. 1982. Results from feeding trials and practical experience concerning protein feeding of ruminants in Norway. In Protein Contribution of Feedstuffs for Ruminants: Application to Feed Formulation (ed. Miller, E. L., Pike, I. H. and Es, A. J. H. Van), pp. 86–102. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, J. S., Robinson, J. J., Mchattif, I. and Fraser, C. 1982. The effect in ewes of source and level of dietary protein on milk yield, and the relationship between the intestinal supply of non-ammonia nitrogen and the production of milk protein. Animal Production 34: 31–40.Google Scholar
Hadjipanayiotou, M. 1986. The effect of type of suckling on the pre- and post-weaning lactation performance of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kids. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjipanayiotou, M., Koumas, A., Gforghiadks, E. and Hadjidemetriou, D. 1988. Studies on degradation and outflow rate of protein supplements in the rumen of dry and lactating Chios ewes and Damascus goats. Animal Production 46: 243–248.Google Scholar
Harris, L. E. (1970). Nutrition Research Techniques for Domestic and Wild Animals. Vol. I. An International Record System and Procedures for Analyzing Samples. Logan, Utah.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1975. Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. US Department of Agriculture ARS H-4.Google Scholar
Kaufman, W. and Lupping, W. 1982. Protected proteins and protected amino acids for ruminants. In Protein Contribution of Feedstuffs for Ruminants: Application to Feed Formulation (ed. Miller, E. L., Pike, I. H. and Es, A. J. H. Van), pp. 36–75. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klopfenstein, T. 1985. Animal protein products fed as bypass protein for ruminants. Feedstuffs, 02 25, p. 31.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1973. The analysis of agricultural materials. Technical Bulletin 27. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical Bulletin 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P. 1981. Nutrition and feeding of goats. Application of temperate climatic conditions. In Goat Production (ed. Gall, C.), pp. 198–232. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oldham, J. D. 1984. Amino acid metabolism in ruminants. Proceedings of Cornell Conference for Feed Manufacturers, pp. 137–151.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. 1982. Protein Nutrition in Ruminants. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. and Mcdonald, I. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Reid, G. W. and Mcdonald, I. 1981. The effects of protein degradability and food intake on milk yield and composition in cows in early lactation. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 547–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skjevdal, T. 1981. Effect on goat performance of given quantities of feedstuffs, and their planned distribution during the cycle of reproduction. In Nutrition and Systems of Goat Feeding (ed. Morand-Fehr, P., Bourbouze, A. and Simiane, M. De), ITOVIC-INRA International Symposium, Tours, France, pp. 300–318.Google Scholar
Small, J. and Gordon, F. J. 1985. The effect of source of supplementary protein on the performance of dairy cows offered grass silage as the basal diet. Animal Production 40: 520 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Thonney, M. L. and Hogue, D. E. 1986. Fish meal or cottonseed meal as supplemental protein for growing Holstein steers. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 1648–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar