4.4 Article

Performance and hemtochemical parameters of buck-kids fed concentrate partially replaced with tropical Piliostigma thonningii foliage

Journal

ANIMAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
Volume 89, Issue 2, Pages 340-347

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/asj.12814

Keywords

blood; goat; Piliostigma thonningii; tannins

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fifteen 5-month-old Red Sokoto buck-kids, (6.6 +/- 0.71kg body weight (BW)) randomly distributed into three groups of five animals per group, were used to study the effects of supplementary concentrate partially replaced with Piliostigma thonningii (PT) foliage on the growth performance, economic benefit and blood profile in a completely randomized design using analysis of variance. The goats in group 1 received 100% supplementary concentrates (PT0), groups 2 and 3 received 25% (PT25) and 50% (PT50), respectively, of concentrate replaced with an equal amount (dry matter basis) of Piliostigma foliage. The goats were fed a basal diet of threshed sorghum top (TST). Intake of concentrate, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, total feeding cost and cost/kg BW were greater (P < 0.05) for PT0 than for PT25 and PT50. Consumption of P. thonningii foliage was greater (P < 0.05) for PT50 relative to PT25. Tannin consumption of the treatment diets were greater (P < 0.05) than that of the control concentrate diet. Serum urea N reduced (P < 0.05) with increasing level of concentrate replacement, while serum glucose was higher (P < 0.05) in PT0 than in PT50. However, means of all blood measurements were within normal ranges for goats. Net benefit showed this rank order: PT0 < PT50 < PT25 (all P < 0.05). Both differential and relative benefits were higher (P < 0.05) for PT25 than for PT50. P. thonningii foliage can replace 50% of supplemental concentrate without impairing feed intake, growth performance and health of buck-kids.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available