Effect of Soybean, Feather and Hair Meals and Fat on the Performance of Growing-Finishing Beef Cattle

Abstract

Three feedlot studies were conducted with growing-finishing beef cattle to compare the nutritional value of soybean meal (SBM), hydrolyzed feather meal (FM) and hydrolyzed hog hair meal (HM) as sources of supplemental protein. Eight different pelleted protein supplements were formulated by replacing 25 to 100% of the SBM protein in a control supplement (Supplement A) with FM and/or HM protein. Approximately 8 to 30% of the dietary crude protein (CP) in 12.5% CP diets (dry basis) was supplied by FM and/or HM protein in the various experiments. Steer calves (Experiment 1) receiving a corn silage-high-moisture corn diet supplemented with various protein supplements containing 19 or 31% FM or HM exhibited no significant differences in daily gains, feed efficiency, feed consumption or carcass characteristics. Addition of .23 kg of feed grade fat to each supplement type did not significantly affect daily gains or carcass characteristics. Steers receiving added fat consumed significantly less (13%) dry matter (DM) than did steers receiving no additional fat. Heifer calves (Experiment 2) fed a corn silage-cracked corn diet supplemented with protein supplements containing either 9 or 19% FM or HM or containing 9% of both FM and HM were significantly less efficient in converting dry feed to gain than were heifers receiving a SBM supplement. There were no significant differences in gains, feed consumption or carcass characteristics of heifers receiving the different l Journal Collins 80523. supplement types. Steer calves (Experiment 3) receiving a high moisture ground ear corn diet and either a SBM or one of three types of FM supplements containing 10, 19 or 29% FM exhibited no significant differences in average daily gains. (

Avaliação das Farinhas de Peixe e Pena, no Confinamento de Bezerros Leiteiros Desmamados, Através de Dietas Calculadas em Termos de Proteína Bruta ou de Proteína Metabolizável

“…England & Gill (1985) e Sanderson et al (1992) também verificaram que o aumento da farinha de peixe na dieta aumentava linearmente a ingestão de matéria seca total. Entretanto, de acordo com Wray et al (1979Wray et al ( , 1980, quantidades crescentes de farinha de pena não estimulam o consumo de matéria seca, sendo observados consumos semelhantes nos animais que consumiam a farinha de pena ou o farelo de soja; esses resultados são coerentes com os obtidos neste experimento.…”

“…Melhores conversões alimentares para animais alimentados com farinha de pena, em relação ao farelo de soja, foram verificadas por Goedeken et al (1990 a,b), embora as diferenças não tenham sido estatisticamente significativas. Jordan & Croom (1957) e Wray et al (1979) também não encontraram diferenças estatísticas na conversão alimentar dos animais alimentados com farinha de pena ou com o farelo de soja, concordando, portanto, com os resultados deste experimento.…”

Effect of various poultry feather hydrolysates on the growth of indigenous keratinolytic strains

“…Thus, it can be assumed that the number of broiler feather waste produced in a year is enormous [2]. The availability and sustainability of the abundant production of feather waste make poultry feathers suitable to be used as an alternative protein source due to the high protein content of feathers, which is 86.29% [3]; 85 to 100% [4]; and 74.4 to 87.3% [5]. Feather protein is mainly composed of keratin, a structural protein that has low digestibility causes environmental pollution.…”

Optimization of Preparation Protein Hydrolysate by Protease G6 Using Response Surface Methodology and Free Radical Scavenging Activities From Feather Meal

“…Compared to soybean meal, using chicken feather meal as a supplement gives a similar rate of milk yield and feed efficiency; however, it also gives a lower content of milk protein (Lu, Potchoiba, Sahlu, & Fernandez, 1990). Feather meals and hair meals can be used as substituted supplements for soy bean in growing-finishing beef cattle with on effect but required more feed per unit of gain (Wray, Beeson, Perry, Mohler, & Baugh, 1979).…”