Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:00:48.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of methods of characterising feeds for the prediction of daily liveweight gains in ewe lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2021

C. Rymer  and
S. Redman
C. Rymer
Affiliation:
Shuttleworth College, School of Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Cranfield University, Old Warden Park, Biggleswade, SG18 9DX, United Kingdom
S. Redman
Affiliation:
Shuttleworth College, School of Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Cranfield University, Old Warden Park, Biggleswade, SG18 9DX, United Kingdom
Get access

Extract

A variety of in vitro methods have been developed to characterise feeds. For routine analysis, any such method needs to be relatively rapid, cheap and reproducible, as well as providing data that may enable the accurate prediction of animal performance (Graham, 1993). The objective of this experiment was to determine which of a number of methods of feed characterisation best predicted the observed daily liveweight gain of ewe lambs fed those feeds.

The feeds used in this experiment were grass silage, (GS), molassed sugarbeet feed (MSBF), citrus pulp (CIT), wheat distillers' grains (WDG) and fishmeal (FM). Forty ewe lambs were randomly allocated between four groups and fed GS (0.7 kg DM/d) supplemented with either MSBF/FM, MSBF/WDG, CIT/WDG or CIT/FM.

Type
Sheep Nutrition
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science , Volume 1996 , March 1996 , pp. 169
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Graham, H. 1993. Enzyme systems for feed characterisation. Characterisation of feeds for farm animals. BSAP Workshop Publication No 1: 23–24.Google Scholar