4.3 Article

Effect of date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) leaves on productive performance of growing lambs

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-020-02493-2

关键词

Additive; Date palm leaves; Silage; Digestibility; Weight gain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nutritive value of date palm leaves ensiled with different additives was evaluated in lambs. The additives-treated DPL silage showed higher digestibility, nutrient content, and daily weight gain compared to the control, with T2 showing better results than T3. Blood constituents were within the normal ranges for the lambs, with some slight alterations due to treatments.
Eighteen 4-month-old lambs, with a mean live weight (LW) of 19.47 +/- 0.20 kg, were used to evaluate the nutritive value of date palm leaves (DPL) ensiled with different additives in a completely randomized design. Lambs were stratified into three groups of 6 lambs each and fed a control diet comprising 60% concentrate feed mixture (CFM) and 40% DPL silage (T1). In other treatments, the DPL silage (DPLS) of the control treatment was replaced with EM1 additive-treated DPLS (T2) or El-Mofeed additive-treated DPLS (T3). Apparent digestibility, total digestible nutrient, digestible crude protein, dry matter intake, daily weight gain (DWG), price of DWG, daily profit, and economics of feed efficiency were higher (P<0.05) for the additives-treated DPLS relative to the control, with T2 enhancing these parameters compared with T3. With exception of ruminal pH, which was reduced, concentrations of ruminal NH3-N and total volatile fatty acids (VFA) increased 4 h post feeding. However, ruminal NH3-N and total VFA were greater (P<0.05) for the additives-treated DPLS, with T2 producing higher values than T3. Ruminal pH and feed cost/kg LW gain were lower for T2 relative to other treatments. Blood constituents were within the normal ranges for lambs, though slightly altered by treatments. Whereas serum total protein, albumin, and globulin were affected (P<0.05) in this rank order, T1

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据