Effect of feeding complete feed block containing rumen protected protein, non‐protein nitrogen and rumen protected fat on improving body condition and carcass traits of cull ewes

Abstract

Nutrient utilization, body condition and carcass traits of cull ewes were studied in three dietary regimens based on complete feed block (CFB) feeding to control (C) with rumen protected protein (RPP), CU [RPP + urea (6 g/kg)] and CUF [RPP + urea + rumen protected fat (RPF; 40 g/kg)]. The RPP component (g/kg) in C had 1% formaldehyde-treated soy flakes 50, mustard cake 50 and sesame cake 30. The mustard and sesame cakes were replaced with urea on equivalent N basis in CU and CUF. The ewes were offered ad libitum CFB composed (g/kg) of concentrate 650, roughage 300 and molasses 50. The digestibility of OM and EE was higher (p< 0.05) in CUF than in CU and C, while that of NDF and ADF was lower (p < 0.05). The CP digestibility was higher in both CU and CUF. Utilization of N and Ca was higher (p < 0.05) in CUF compared with C and CU. Urinary purine derivatives analysis and microbial N synthesis were similar in all the groups. Blood glucose concentration improved at 90 day compared with 0 day. Ruminal attributes showed a higher (p < 0.05) pH, total N, TCA precipitable N, entodiniomorphs and total ciliate population in CU and CUF than in the control. The CUF had higher (p < 0.01) DM, digestible OM and ME intake, which resulted in higher (p < 0.05) weight gain and better feed efficiency. Ewes in all the groups showed an improvement in carcass traits at 90 day. The pre-slaughter weight was higher (p < 0.05) and dissected and KOH bone content was lower in CUF. Thus, feeding of CFB with urea as a cheaper N source and RPF to enrich with energy supported the improved performance as evidenced from higher nutrient input, 'utilization and efficiency with enhanced carcass traits' for better marketability and returns from cull ewes.

Effects of Supplementation of Rumen Protected Fats on Rumen Ecology and Digestibility of Nutrients in Sheep

“…However, in contrast, they found better ( p = 0.03) feed conversion ratio (FCR) than the control diet. Contrary to the present study, Bhatt and Sahoo [26] reported improved weight gain and feed efficiency with RPF supplementation in cull ewes.…”

“…Similar effects of RPF supplementation on digestibilities were reported by several studies [44,45,46]. In contrast, Bhatt and Sahoo [26] reported higher OM and EE digestibilities with RPF supplementation. Schauff and Clark [47] stated that there was an increase in CP digestibility with supplementation of the calcium salt of long-chain fatty acid to the dairy animals.…”

“…Similar findings were reported by studies conducted by [7,44,46,52]. It was also reported that improved digestibility of EE and CF with supplementation of calcium salts was because of increased digestion of FA in Ca soap as a result of the lower ruminal biohydrogenation (BH) and consequently higher concentrations of UFA in intestinal chime [26]. In general, unprotected fat that passes through rumen is prone to lipolysis and biohydrogenation.…”

“…These findings are supported by Schauff et al [41] and Haddad and Younis [3] who found that ME intake was not altered by adding RPF to the experimental diets. In contrast, Bhatt and Sahoo [26] reported higher ME intake with RPF supplementation. One possible reason for lack of significant differences in ME intake among the treatment groups in the present study could be low forage contents in the diets.…”

Effects of Two Different Energy Sources in Total Mixed Diets on the Performances and Blood Metabolites of Lactating Boerka Goats

“…This is consistent with Vakili et al (2011) indicating that diet with the fat content of 6.7% had potential to improve the energy balance state of sheep compared to a glucogenic diet. Consistent findings were also reported by Bhatt et al (2013b) in lambs and Bhatt & Sahoo (2017) in ewes that growth was improved in diet with higher fat content. In tropical dairy cows (Mobeen et al 2017) and in non-lactation ewes, however, Behan et al (2019) did not found a significant effect of increasing the fat content of diet from 4.9 to 8.4 % by supplementing protected fat.…”