Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:19:52.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A notes on nutrient digestibility and nitrogen retention in ewes fed whole grains of triticale, wheat and maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Felix ,
R. A. Hill  and
W. Winchester
A. Felix
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Animal Industries, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Normal, Alabama 35762, USA
R. A. Hill
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Animal Industries, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Normal, Alabama 35762, USA
W. Winchester
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Animal Industries, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Normal, Alabama 35762, USA
Get access

Abstract

Two digestion trials were conducted using sheep fed whole grains of triticale, wheat or maize on an equal amount or an isonitrogenous basis. Nine ewes were used in a 10-day collection period for each trial. Both trials consisted of three treatment groups of three animals each. Each ewe received daily either 1200 g of a diet containing 740 g (per kg diet) triticale, wheat or maize (trial 1) or 900 g of a diet containing 650, 650 and 600 g (per kg diet), respectively, of the above grains. Digestibilities of various nutrients, dry matter and organic matter were generally similar among treatments. However, apparent digestibility of crude fibre was significantly higher for ewes fed triticale than for those fed maize or wheat diets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 363 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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

REFERENCES

Association of official Analytical Chemists. 1975. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 12th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dinusson, W. E. 1971. Triticale, wheat and barley as livestock feeds. Proc. 32nd Minnesota Nutr. Conf, Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
Lofgreen, G. P., Dunbar, J. R. and Addis, D. S. 1970. Barley, milo, triticale and wheat in high-energy finishing rations. Calif. Agric. Exp. 10th Annu. Feeders Day Rep., p. 30.Google Scholar
Longnecker, T. C., Langford, C. and Staggs, D. 1969. Comparison of triticale with grain sorghum as the grain in swine rations. Rep. High Plains Res. Foundation, Plainview, Tex., No. 331.Google Scholar
Rao, D. R., Patel, G. and Nishimuta, J. F. 1980. Comparison of protein quality of corn, triticale and wheat. Nutr. Rep. Int. 21: 923–929.Google Scholar
Reddy, S. G., Chen, M. L. and Rao, D. R. 1975. Replacement value of triticale for corn and wheat in beef finishing rations. J. Anim. Sci. 40: 940–944.Google Scholar
Reddy, C. S. and Nishimuta, J. F. 1978. Comparative digestibility and nitrogen balance of whole dry-rolled and micronized triticale. A. Res. Rep. Alabama A and M Univ., Sch. Agric. Environ. Sci., No. 8., pp. 135–144.Google Scholar
STEEL, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Technicon Instrument Corporation. 1974. Ammoniacal BD acid digests. Technicon Industrial System, Industrial Method No 321-74A. Tarrytown, New York.Google Scholar