4.3 Article

The value of protein-rich supplements on the performance of Red Chittagong heifers (Bos indicus) fed urea molasses straw-based diet

Journal

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
Volume 42, Issue 7, Pages 1505-1511

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-010-9600-8

Keywords

Dry matter intake; Live weight gain; Nutrient digestibility; Protein supplementation; Red Chittagong heifer

Funding

  1. United States Department of Agriculture

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of the study was to observe the effect of protein density of concentrate mixture on the growth performance of Red Chittagong Cattle (RCC) heifers (Bos indicus), an endangered variety in Bangladesh. The experiment was conducted for a period of 90 days with 12 RCC heifers, and the animals were divided into four groups on the basis of their initial live weight. The animals were assigned at random to four dietary treatments having three replications in each in a randomized complete block design. Three iso-energetic [10.5 MJ metabolizable energy (ME)/kg dry matter (DM)] concentrate mixtures were formulated to provide protein concentrations (%) of 15, 20, and 25 for T(1), T(2), and T(3), respectively. Crude protein (CP) content of control diet was 7.08%. Animals of all groups were fed urea molasses straw (UMS) ad libitum and green grass at a rate of 20% of total DM intake. Digestibility of DM was highest in the treatment group fed 25% CP supplement (T(3)) and lowest in the unsupplemented group (T(0)). Average daily gain increased with increasing CP concentration in supplements, but mean difference was not significant between the 20% and 25% CP groups. Feed cost per kilogram live weight gain was lowest (P > 0.05) in 20% CP supplement and highest in the unsupplemented group. The results revealed that the CP concentration of 20% in concentrate mixture containing 10.5 MJ ME is cost effective with the UMS-based diet of RCC heifers for better nutrient digestibility and growth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available