47 research outputs found

    Effect of feeding maize fiber in wet, dry and silage form with cotton cake supplementation on intake, nutrient utilization and performance in Nellore Brown sheep

    Get PDF
    Maize fiber was evaluated in wet, dry and silage form with 200 g cotton cake supplementation in growing Nellore Brown ram lambs (24.8±0.96) using six sheep per treatment in a growth-cummetabolism trial of 90 days with collection of feed, leftover, feces and urine samples during the last ten days. Average daily gain (g), nutrient digestibility (OM, CP, NDF, ADF) tended to be higher (P = 0.07 to 0.09) and intake of OM, DOM, CP (gld) and ME (MJ!d) and nitrogen retention were significantly (P = 0. 0002 to 0. 002) higher in lambs when fed maize fiber in silage rather than in wet and dry form. Depending on input such as labor required ensilaging or drying of maize fiber seems an economically more beneficial and from a food security point of view a safer way than feeding wet maize fiber

    Evaluation of different cultivars of sorghum for fodder quality and agronomic performance in Semi-Arid Tropics

    Get PDF
    Thirty four improved sorghum cultivars were evaluated for fodder quality and agronomic performance using two cuts harvested during the rainy season 2014 at ICRISAT, Patancheru following randomized complete block design with two replications. Within cuts consistent significant cultivar difference were only observed for biomass yields which ranged from 17.3 - 33.8 t ha-1 in the first cut to 3.2 and 17.4 t ha-1 in the second cut. Within and across cuts cultivar-dependent variations in fodder quality traits were statistically largely insignificant and inconsistent

    Comparisons of ensiled maize, sorghum and pearl millet forages fed to sheep

    Get PDF
    Water-use efficient sorghum (7) and pearl millet (5) forages were compared with reference maize forage as silage tested with Nellore Brown sheep. Mean silage organic matter intake was 352, 297 and 137g!d in maize, sorghum and pearl millet silage, respectively Current pearl millet forage cultivars do not match maize forage in terms of fodder quality Of the 7 sorghum cultivars several were on par with maize though the cultivar dependent variation in intake was huge (254 to 343g!d). Anti-nutritive factors associated with sorghum like dhurrin were undetectable in the silages, although present in the fresh forage. A routine laboratory trait does not seem to describe sorghum and pearl millet forages adequately More research is required to understand the true nutritional potential of sorghum and in particular pearl millet forages. Dissemination of these forages based on only biomass yield should be discouraged
    corecore