Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:10:09.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The performance of ewes offered concentrates containing olive by-products in late pregnancy and lactation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. F. Aguilera ,
M. A. García  and
E. Molina
J. F. Aguilera
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental del Zaidín, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Profesor Albareda 1, 18008 Granada, Spain
M. A. García
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental del Zaidín, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Profesor Albareda 1, 18008 Granada, Spain
E. Molina
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental del Zaidín, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Profesor Albareda 1, 18008 Granada, Spain
Get access

Abstract

Ewes of the Segureña breed were allocated to groups and were group-fed different diets composed of concentrates and roughage (lucerne hay in experiment 1 and barley straw in experiment 2), in late pregnancy and lactation. The concentrates were formulated with sunflower cake and barley, either alone (control group) or partly replaced with olive cake (OLC) and olive molasses (OLM) in a 5:1 ratio. The OLC was either untreated or was treated with NaOH or ammonia. Concentrates were given to provide proportionately 0·4 and 0·7 of calculated metabolizable energy (ME) requirements in experiments 1 and 2 respectively. In experiment 2 a further group grazed pasture and was given barley at a reduced rate.

In experiment 1, the mean ME intake during late pregnancy (5+1 weeks pre-lambing) for all treatment groups was about 796 kj/kg M0·75 per day and largely exceeded their average energy requirements, whereas it was close to requirements (601 kj/kg M0·75 per day) in experiment 2. During lactation, ME intake was adjusted to the theoretical needs for ewes suckling a single lamb (835 to 870 kj/kg M0·75 per day) and was slightly deficient (990 to 1020 kj/kg M0·75 per day) for ewes with twins, irrespective of both treatment (except the group at pasture) and experiment.

Minor differences in animal performance, attributed to the type of concentrate offered, were found. In pregnancy, alkali treatment of OLC significantly improved live-weight gains (P < 0·01). Live-weight gains of ewes in experiment 2 were lower than those in experiment 1 in accordance with their lower ME intake, the lowest gains being found in the group at pasture (P < 0·05). Weight losses in lactating ewes in experiment 1 were 17 to 100 and 9 to 165 g per ewe per day for ewes suckling single and twin lambs respectively. In experiment 2 ewes with twins gained weight, while those with single lambs showed little weight change, although differences between experiments were too small to attain statistical significance. No differences in barley straw intake by pregnant ewes were found between treatment groups. However, the intake of barley straw by lactating ewes in the groups offered concentrates containing OLC and OLM was significantly higher than that by controls (P < 0·05).

Birth weight of lambs tended to be higher in experiment 2 when ewes consumed less ME during pregnancy, although variations were not statistically significant. The most important cause of growth rate variation was the number of lambs born to a ewe (P < 0·001). The growth rate of lambs in the outdoor group was significantly lower than that of lambs in the indoor groups (P < 0·05).

Keywords

eweslactationolive by-productspregnancy
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 219 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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
Aguilera, J. F. and Molina, E. 1986. Valorisation nutritive d'un grignon d'olive traite a la soude. Annales de Zootechnie 35: 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilera, J. F., Molina, E. and Boza, J. 1989. Siruacion actual en el aprovechamiento de subproductos del olivar. Recientes aportaciones de nuestro laboratorio. In Nuevas fuentes de alimentos para la produccion animal (ed. Cabrera, A., Alcaide, E. Molina and Varo, A. Garrido), pp. 390–420. Consejeria de Agricultura y Pesca de la Junta de Andalucia, Sevilla.Google Scholar
Aguilera, J. F., Molina, E., Prieto, C. and Boza, J. 1986. Estimation de las necesidades energeticas de mantenimiento en ganado ovino de raza Segurena. Archivos de Zootecnia 35: 89–96.Google Scholar
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
Commission of the European Communities. 1977. Anatomical jointing, tissue separation and weight proposed as the EEC standard method for beef. Coordination Agricultural Research, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
Cruz Mira, M. 1988. Producción láctea en ovinos de raza Segureña. Período de amamantamiento. Comunicaciones agrarias, serie: producción animal no. 2.Google Scholar
Gasa, J., Medrano, J., Fondevilla, M. and Guada, J. A. 1990. Valor nutritivo para los rumiantes del concentrado de alpechin como suplemento de dietas forrajeras equilibradas. Archivos de Zootecnia. 39: 295–304.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture Handbook, United States Department of Agriculture, no. 379, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Junta, de Andalucia. 1989. Anuario Estadistíco de Andalucía. Sevilla.Google Scholar
Molina, E. and Aguilera, J. F. 1988. Valorisation nutritive d'un grignon d'olive traité à la soude. Utilisation digestive des constituants des parois cellulaires. Annales de Zootechnie 37: 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, R. J., Treacher, T. T. and Mason, V. C. 1985. The effect of ammonia treatment on the intake of straw and hay when offered with rations of concentrates to ewes in late pregnancy. Animal Production 40: 101–109.Google Scholar
Peart, J. N. 1968. Some effects of live weight and body condition on the milk production of Blackface ewes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 70: 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, C., Aguilera, J. F., Lara, L. and Fonolla, J. 1990. Protein and energy requirements for maintenance of indigenous Granadina goats. British Journal of Nutrition 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistical Graphics Corporation. 1986. Statgraphics statistical graphics system. Statistical Graphics Corporation Inc., Maryland.Google Scholar
Stem, D., Adler, J. H., Tagari, H. and Eyal, E. 1978a. Responses of dairy ewes before and after parturition to different nutritional regimes during pregnancy. I. Ewe body weight, urine contents, and lamb birth weight. Annales de Zootechnie 27: 317–333.Google Scholar
Stern, D., Adler, J. H., Tagari, H. and Eyal, E. 1978b. Responses of dairy ewes before and after parturition to different nutritional regimes during pregnancy. II. Energy intake, body weight changes during lactation and milk production. Annales de Zootechnie 27: 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, A. and Field, A. C. 1972. Effects of dietary of deficiencies of energy, protein and calcium on the pregnant ewe. 11. Body composition and mineral content of the lamb. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge. 78: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18: 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar