Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T18:44:55.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of restricted feeding and re-feeding of Barbarine lambs: intake, growth and non-carcass components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Mahouachi  and
N. Atti
M. Mahouachi*
Affiliation:
Ecole Supérieure d'Agriculture du Kef, Le Kef, Tunisia
N. Atti
Affiliation:
INRA-Tunisie, Laboratoire de Productions Animales et Fourragères, rue Hédi Karray, 2080 Ariana, Tunisia
*
† E-mail: mahouachi.mokhtar@iresa.agrinet.tn
Get access

Abstract

Abstract Fifty intact male Barbarine lambs were used to assess the effects of restricted feeding and re-alimentation on intake, growth and non-carcass components. Five lambs were slaughtered at the start of the trial, the remainder were randomly allocated into three groups. One group was offered only stubble grazing (low: L), another, also on stubble, received, indoors, an average of 80 g dry matter (DM) of soya-bean meal per day (medium: M); the third group was kept indoors and had free access to hay and 450 g of concentrate per day (high: H). At the end of this restriction period (70 days), five lambs per group were slaughtered. The 10 remaining animals in each group were divided into two groups receiving concentrate and hay ad libitum. The crude protein content (CP) of the concentrate was 160 and 210 g/kg DM for the two treatments, respectively. At the end of the trial all animals were slaughtered at 37·61 ± 2·05 kg live weight.

In the restriction period, sheep from the H group had a significantly higher growth rate (108 g/day) than L group (61 g/day) with M intermediate. The empty body weight (EBW) as well as carcass weight were significantly higher in H than in restricted sheep. Digestive tract components and liver weight were the same for all treatments. However, skin weight was significantly (P < 0·01) affected by dietary treatment. The heart and lungs were also heavier in H lambs than in the two other groups. Conversely, the relative weights of gut and liver as proportion of EBW increased in restricted lambs, while that of skin and red organs was not affected by diet.

In the re-alimentation period and with both CP levels, the compensating animals showed the same growth rate as the previous unrestricted ones. At the end of this period, organ weights, in both absolute and relative value, were comparable among lambs of the three nutritional histories and two CP level. The absolute and proportional daily gains were similar in all animals for visceral and external organs, but they were significantly higher in H lambs than in L and M ones for the omental and mesenteric fat and testis.

Keywords

compensatory growthfood restrictionlambsoffal
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , October 2005 , pp. 305 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2005

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

Agabriel, J. and Giraud, J. M. 1988. Contenu ruminal de la Charolaise. Influence d'une brusque variation du niveau alimentaire. Reproduction, Nutrition, Développement 28: 107–108.Google Scholar
Atti, N. and Khaldi, G. 1987. Etude comparative de la qualité des carcasses d'agneaux de races Barbarine et Noire de Thibar en fonction du poids d'abattage. Annales de l'INRAT 60: 20.Google Scholar
Atti, N., Nozière, P., Doreau, M., Kayouli, C. and Bocquier, F. 2000. Effects of underfeeding and refeeding on offal weight in the Barbarine ewes. Small Ruminant Research 38: 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atti, N., Ben Salem, H. and Priolo, A. 2003. Effects of polyethylene glycol in concentrate or feed blocks on carcass composition and offal weight of Barbarine lambs fed Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. foliage. Animal Research 52: 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer-Rocher, F. and Espejo, D. M. 1972. Influence du poids d'abattage et du sexe sur les performances de boucherie des agneaux issus du croisement Manchego x Rasa Aragonesa. Annales de Zootechnie 21: 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courot, M. 1971. Etablissement de la spermatogénèse chez l'agneau (Ovis aries). Etude expérimentale de son contrôle gonadotrope; importance des cellules de la lignée sertolienne. Thèse Doct. Es-Sciences- Paris VI-C. N. R. S: A. D. 6317.Google Scholar
Drouillard, J. S., Klopfenstein, T. J., Britton, R. A., Bauer, M. L., Gramlish, S. M., Wester, T. J. and Ferrel, C. L. 1991. Growth, body composition, and visceral organ mass and metabolism in lambs during and after metabolizable protein or net energy restrictions. Journal of Animal Science 69: 3357–3375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, C. L., Koong, L. J. and Nienaber, J. A. 1986. Effects of previous nutrition on body composition and maintenance energy costs of growing lambs. British Journal of Nutrition 56: 595–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisch, J. E. and Vercoe, J. E. 1977. Food intake, eating rate, weight gains, metabolic rate and efficiency of feed utilisation in Bos taurus and Bos indicus crossbred cattle. Animal Production 25: 343–351.Google Scholar
Gill, M., France, J., Summers, M., McBride, B. W. and Milligan, L. P. 1989. Mathematical integration of protein metabolism in growing lambs. Journal of Nutrition 119: 1269–1286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, P. M., Lee, J., Sinclair, B. R., Treloar, B. P. and Gurnsey, M. P. 1994. Effect of food intake on energy and protein metabolism in the skin of Romney sheep. British Journal of Nutrition 71: 647–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoch, T., Begon, C., Cassar-Malak, I., Picard, B. and Savary-Auzeloux, I. 2003. Mécanismes et conséquences de la croissance compensatrice chez les ruminants., Production Animale INRA 16: 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iason, G. R. and Mantecon, A. R. 1993. The effects of dietary protein level during food restriction on carcass and non-carcass components, digestibility and subsequent compensatory growth in lambs. Animal Production 56: 93–100.Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique. 1988. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
Kabbali, A., Johnson, D. W., Goodrich, R. D. and Allen, C. E. 1992. Effects of undernutrition and refeeding on weights of body parts and chemical components of growing Moroccan lambs. Journal of Animal Science 70: 2859–2865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamalzadeh, A., Koops, W. J., Bruchem, J. van, Bangma, G. A., Tamminga, S. and Zwart, D. 1998. Feed quality restriction and compensatory growth in growing sheep: development of body organs. Small Ruminant Research 29: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koong, L. J., Ferrell, C. L. and Nienaber, J. A. 1982. Effects of plane of nutrition on organ size and fasting heat production in swine and sheep. In Energy metabolism in farm animals (ed. Ekern, A. and Sundstøl, F. ), pp. 245–248. Agricultural University of Norway, Lillehammer, Norway.Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. R. 1993. Metabolism of the portal drained viscera. In Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism (ed. Forbes, J. M. and France, J.), pp. 267–289. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Murray, D. M., Tulloh, N. M. and Winter, W. H. 1977. The effect of 3 different growth rates on some offal components of cattle. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozière, P., Attaix, D., Bocquier, F. and Doreau, M. 1999. Effects of underfeeding on weight and cellularity of splanchnic organs in ewes. Journal of Animal Science 77: 2279–2290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortigues, I. and Doreau, M. 1995. Responses of splanchnic tissues of ruminants to changes in intake: absorption of digestion end products, tissue mass, metabolic activity and implications to whole animal energy metabolism. Annales de Zootechnie 44: 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, M., and Micol, D. 1981. Evaluation of energy requirements of beef cows during early lactation. Livestock Production Science 8: 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, C. K. 1995. Quantitative aspects of liver metabolism in ruminants. In Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction (ed. Engelhardt, W. V., Leonhard-Marek, S., Breves, G., and Giesecke, D.), pp. 351–371. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Sainz, R. D. and Bentley, B. E. 1997. Visceral organ mass and cellularity in growth-restricted and refed beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 75: 1229–1236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. User's guide: statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Sents, A. E., Walters, L. E. and Whiterman, J. V. 1982. Performance and carcass characteristics of ram lambs slaughtered at different weights, Journal of Animal Science 55: 1360–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, W., Goetsch, A. L., Forster, L. A. Jr, Galloway, D. L. Sr and Lewis, P. K. Jr 1994. Forage and splanchnic tissue mass in growing lambs: effects of dietary forage levels and sources on splanchnic tissue mass in growing lambs. British Journal of Nutrition 71: 141–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed