Nutritional evaluation of spent maize (<i>Zea mays</i>) cobs as roughage source in sheep feeding

Kavya, P.S.; Prabhu, T. M.; Pradeep, R.; Gloridoss, R. G.; Singh, Kiranjeet; Suresh, B.N.; Murthy, H.K. Siddalinga

doi:10.5958/0973-9718.2018.00036.3

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…DM, OM, CP, NDF and ADF among the experimental diets (Table 4). The observed values are comparable with the findings of Kavya et al (2018) except for digestibility of CP and NDF which are higher in the present study. Similarly, the digestibility values of OM, CP and NDF reported in the present study are higher than the values reported by Venkatesh et al (2014).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The proximate composition and fibre fractions of compounded feed mixture, roughage and extruded complete feeds are presented in Table 1. The composition with respect to proximate principles and fibre fractions in maize cob was comparable with the values reported by Kavya et al (2018) and Senani et al (2013) except for the total ash which was lower. Similarly, the chemical composition and fibre fractions of areca sheath were comparable with the values reported by Gowda et al (2012).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The average daily body weight gain (g) of the lambs did not differ significantly (P0.05) among the treatment groups (Table 3). The ADG reported by Kavya et al (2018) was very low for conventional finger millet straw (31.6 g) and maize cob (39.3 g) based diet in Mandya lambs as compared to the present findings. Similarly, the ADG was found to be higher in the present study as compared to Pradeep (2015) for finger millet straw (31.6 g) and maize cob (46.6 g) based complete diet in mash form in Mandya lambs.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 74%

“…Since the DMI is impacted by the net energy intake of animals (NRC, 2001), the lower intake of DMI in group T 2 could be ascribed to the higher energy density of the respective diet (11.15 MJ/kg DM) compared to the diet of T1 (10.27 MJ/kg DM) and T3 (10.15 MJ/kg DM).There was significant (P0.05) difference in the intakes of OM, CP, EE and ADF among the treatment groups. These findings were found to be higher than the reported values of Kavya et al (2018), Venkatesh et al (2014 and Pradeep (2015) except for ADF intakes in all treatment groups. The higher nutrient intake (except for ADF) observed for extruded finger millet, areca sheath and maize cob based diets than conventionally fed diet as observed by different group of research workers might be due to the effect of extrusion process on the diet.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 64%

“…In Bandur lambs fed spent maize cob based total mixed ration Senani et al (2013) There was no significant difference in cumulative average FCR (g DMI/g body weight gain) among the dietary groups as shown in the Table 3. In contrast, the FCR as reported by Kavya et al (2018) and Pradeep (2015) was found more wider (8.12 to 12.71) reflecting the advantages associated with feed processing by extrusion cooking. T 1 : Finger millet straw based extruded complete feed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 62%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparative Evaluation of Extruded Complete Feeds based on Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana) Straw, Areca (Areca catechu) Sheath and Maize (Zea mays) Cob in Mandya Lambs

Singh¹,

G²,

Prabhu³

et al. 2023

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although crop residues rich in lignocellulose are a potential source of energy, their utilization is limited due to lack of lignolytic activity of the rumen microbial population. Feed processing by heat treatment is known to break the ligno-cellulolse complexes, in which extrusion has been reported as one of the best processing techniques to improve the nutritional value and efficient utilization of complete diets. A comparative evaluation of extruded complete feed based on finger millet straw, a conventional crop residue, along with areca sheath and maize cob has been taken up in this study. Methods: The extruded complete feed was prepared using roughage and concentrate at proportion of 40:60, respectively. Twenty four Mandya lambs of about 3 to 4 months of age with body weight ranging from 7.8 to 12.9 kg were divided into three groups of eight each in a completely randomized design. Feeding trial was carried out for 12 weeks. The animals were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups viz., T1 (Finger millet straw based extruded complete feed), T2 (Areca sheath based extruded complete feed) and T3 (Maize cob based extruded complete feed). Digestion trial was conducted using 5 animals in each group during the last week of the growth trial. Result: Analysis of chemical composition (%) revealed that, maize cob and areca sheath were comparable with finger millet straw except that the maize cob contained lower total ash (2.52 v/s 8.61) and higher NDF and hemicellulose content (86.66 v/s71.61; 29.79 v/s17.18). Rumen in vitro net gas (ml / 200 mg DM / 24 h) production and energy density (ME MJ / kg DM) was higher in areca sheath and maize cob as compared to finger millet straw. There was significant difference in total DMI (g/d and g/kgW0.75) among the treatment groups (P£0.05). There was also a significant difference in OM, CP, EE and ADF intake (P£0.05). The ADG (g) and FCR (g DMI/ g BW gain) for T1, T2 and T3 groups were statistically non-significant. The mean apparent digestibility (%) of DM, OM, CP, NDF and ADF was significantly different among the treatment groups(P£0.01). The per cent Digestible organic matter in dry matter (DOMDM) (T1:70.89,T2:76.13and T3:63.33) was also significantly different among the treatments (P£0.01). It was concluded that the growth rate of lambs fed finger millet straw, areca sheath and maize cob based extruded complete feeds was comparable and could be utilized to sustain production performance of growing Mandya lambs.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 74%

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 64%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 62%

See 3 more Smart Citations