Feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of local (Dhofari) and exotic (cashmere) goats fed on a high-fiber by-products diet supplemented with fish sardine

Hag, M. G. El; Hargi, K. M. El

doi:10.5713/ajas.1996.389

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the other non-carcass components were not affected (P > 0.05) by diet. This finding agrees with those of Kumar et al (1991) andEl Hag &El Shargi (1996). Distribution of non-carcass fat of Ethiopian goats is shown in Table 6.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The breed effect on final body weight (FBW) and ADG was highly significant (P < 0.001), which is in line with the results of El-Hag & El-Shargi (1996), Dhanda et al (2001) and Mahgoub et al (2005). The LES breed had the highest ADG.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Kumar et al (1991) reported that the plane of nutrition did not significantly affect carcass weights, DP and proportions of cuts in Gaddi goats at the age of 14 months. Reddy & Raghavan (1988), Hatendi et al (1992), El Hag & El Shargi (1996 and Sheridan et al (2003) recorded similar effects on DP on SBW and / or carcass weights. However, Mahgoub et al (2005) indicated that increasing ME levels in the diet fed to Omani goats increased carcass weight, EBW and DP.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Breed significantly affected the weights of most edible and non-edible components of stall-fed goats. El Hag & El Shargi (1996) and Kadim et al (2003) also observed genotype effects in different goats. The LES had the heaviest (P < 0.001) weights for liver, heart, kidney, total internal organ and empty GIT.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…On an EBW basis, LES had the highest value (P < 0.01). Literature reports indicated that DP in goats varies between 38 and 56% by breed, sex, age, weight and conformation (Anjaneyulu & Joshi, 1995;El Hag & El Shargi, 1996;Dhanda et al, 1999a;Getahun, 2001). According to Payne & Wilson (1999) the definition of DP that excludes edible offal, reduces the relative contribution of goat meat to the national meat supply.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Growth performance and carcass characteristics of three Ethiopian goat breeds fed grainless diets varying in concentrate to roughage ratios

Sebsibe¹,

Casey²,

Niekerk³

et al. 2007

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth and carcass characteristics of three Ethiopian goat breeds, the Afar, Central Highland (CHG) and Long-eared Somali (LES) were evaluated using three grainless diets varying in concentrate:roughage ratios (diet 1 was 50:50, diet 2, 65:35 and diet 3, 80:20) under feedlot conditions. The roughage was native grass hay and the concentrate consisted of wheat bran and noug cake (Guizotia abyssinica). Seventy-two eight-month old intact male goats (24 per breed) were randomly allotted to the dietary treatments, fed for 126 days and slaughtered at an age of approximately 12 months. The LES had higher average daily gain (ADG), heavier slaughter, empty body (EBW) and carcass weights than Afar and CHG goats. Diet significantly affected ADG, but was similar on carcass traits except for dressing percentage (DP) on an EBW basis and some non-carcass components. The DP on an EBW basis was the highest on diet 1. Breed affected the DP, which ranged from 42.5 -44.6% and 54.3 -55.8% on slaughter weight and EBW basis, respectively. The LES had a greater buttock circumference and carcass compactness. The pH 24 varied between 5.61 -5.67 and chilling losses were between 2.5 and 3.1%. The physical carcass composition (8-10 th rib-cut) ranged from 72 -73, 6.9 -10.9 and 17.1 -20.2% for lean, fat and bone, respectively, and the fat content of the meat ranged from 10.3 -14.0%. Breed affected the weights of internal fat depots. The findings indicate that breed affected the carcass characteristics of the three Ethiopian goat breeds. _______________________________________________________________________________________

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%