Molecular Nutrition

Feeding Value Assessment of Sugarcane Tops and Leaves in Mutton Sheep

Expand
  • 1. Key Laboratory of Feed Biotechnology of the Ministry of Agriculture, Feed Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China;
    2. College of Animal Science and Technology, Jinling Institute of Technology, Nanjing 210038, China

Received date: 2017-09-01

  Online published: 2018-03-05

Abstract

Common nutrient composition analysis, in situ and in vivo digestion tests were used to assess feeding values of sugarcane tops and leaves in mutton sheep. Three Dorper×thin-tailed Han crossbred F1 wethers fitted with permanent rumen fistulas were used as experimental animals. Nylon-bag technique was used to estimate ruminal degradation characteristics of sugarcane tops and leaves. Six Dorper×thin-tailed Han crossbred F1 adult male sheep with body weight of (67.0±5.1) kg were used in in vivo digestion test. The pre-test period lasted for 10 d, and the test lasted for 6 d. Sugarcane tops and leaves were ad libitum fed. Dry matter intake (DMI) and nutrient apparent digestibility were measured by total collection of feces and urine. The results showed as follows:1) gross energy (GE), and contents of crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), crude ash (Ash), calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P)[dry matter (DM) basis] were 16.58 MJ/kg, 7.26%, 1.23%, 68.15%, 34.54%, 7.02%, 0.52% and 0.14%, respectively; 2) ruminal effective degradability of DM, OM, CP, NDF and ADF of sugarcane tops and leaves were 45.53%, 44.14%, 49.33%, 33.02% and 35.26%, respectively; 3) sugarcane tops and leaves DMI of mutton sheep was 942.95 g/d accounted for 1.39% of body weight, and the intake potential was 39.98 g/(kg W0.75·d); 4) digestive energy of sugarcane tops and leaves was 8.32 MJ/kg for mutton sheep; 5) apparent digestibility of DM, OM, CP, NDF, ADF, Ash, Ca and P were 52.48%, 54.17%, 50.96%, 55.84%, 54.83%, 47.57%, 8.79% and 0.84%, respectively, nitrogen retention rate was 20.09%, and nitrogen biological value (NVB) was 38.68%; 6) roughage grading index (GI) of sugarcane tops and leaves was 1.16, and sugarcane tops and leaves were categorized to the fourth grade. It is concluded that sugarcane tops and leaves can be intake and utilize by mutton sheep, considering as a medium quality roughage. Consideration should be given to the characteristics of low protein content and high fiber content, as well as Ca and P supplementations when sugarcane tops and leaves are used for preparation of diet for mutton sheep.

Cite this article

WANG Shiqin, ZHANG Naifeng, DENG Kaidong, JIANG Chenggang, DIAO Qiyu . Feeding Value Assessment of Sugarcane Tops and Leaves in Mutton Sheep[J]. Chinese Journal of Animal Nutrition, 2018 , 30(3) : 1146 -1154 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-267x.2018.03.040

References

[1] 国家统计局.国家数据[EB/OL].http://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01.

[2] 高雨飞,黎力之,欧阳克蕙,等.甘蔗梢作为饲料资源的开发与利用[J].饲料广角,2014(21):44-45.

[3] RIBEIRO R C O,VILLELA S D J,VALADARES FILHO S C,et al.Effects of roughage sources produced in a tropical environment on forage intake,and ruminal and microbial parameters[J].Journal of Animal Science,2015,93(5):2363-2374.  

[4] GRADIZ L,SUGIMOTO A,UJIHARA K,et al.Beef cow-calf production system integrated with sugarcane production:simulation model development and application in Japan[J].Agricultural Systems,200794(3):750-762.

[5] ORTIZ-RUBIO M A,ØRSKOV E R,MILNE J,et al.Effect of different sources of nitrogen on in situ degradability and feed intake of Zebu cattle fed sugarcane tops (Saccharum officinarum)[J].Animal Feed Science and Technology,2007,139(3/4):143-158.

[6] 朱欣,郝俊,刘洪来,等.6种不同添加物对甘蔗叶梢青贮发酵品质的影响[J].草地学报,2015,23(2):407-413.

[7] 周雄,周璐丽,王定发,等.日粮中青贮甘蔗尾叶替代不同比例王草对海南黑山羊生长性能、养分表观消化率及血清生化指标的影响[J].中国畜牧兽医,2015,42(6):1443-1448.

[8] 唐振华,周玲,邹彩霞,等.青贮甘蔗尾、青贮玉米秸秆对生长水牛生长性能、消化代谢及血液生化指标的影响[J].中国畜牧兽医,2016,43(1):92-100.

[9] 陈晓琳,刘志科,孙娟,等.不同牧草在肉羊瘤胃中的降解特性研究[J].草业学报,2014,23(2):268-277.

[10] φRSKOV E R,MCDONALD I M.The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to the rate of passage[J].Journal of Agricultural Science,1979,92(2):499-503.  

[11] 颜品勋,冯仰廉,杨雅芳,等.青粗饲料蛋白质及有机物瘤胃降解规律的研究[J].中国畜牧杂志,1996,32(4):42-43.

[12] 张丽英.饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术[M].3版.北京:中国农业大学出版社,2010.

[13] VAN SOEST P J.Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its application to forages[J].Journal of Animal Science,,1967,26(1):119-128.  

[14] 中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局,中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB/T 23387-2009饲草营养品质评定GI法[S].北京:中国标准出版社,2009.

[15] 肖祎,吕达,陈政,等.甘蔗梢研究进展[J].中国糖料,2013(1):65-67.

[16] 熊本海,罗清尧,赵峰.中国饲料成分及营养价值表(2016年第27版)制定说明[J].中国饲料,2016(24):26-36.

[17] 曹志军,史海涛,李德发,等.中国反刍动物饲料营养价值评定研究进展[J].草业学报,2015,24(3):1-19.

[18] 杨世平,文际坤,毛华明,等.对拔节期后的糖用甘蔗的营养价值分析[J].云南畜牧兽医,2002(2):1-3.

[19] 刘洁.肉用绵羊饲料代谢能与代谢蛋白质预测模型的研究[D].博士学位论文.北京:中国农业科学院,2012:35-49.

[20] 赵天章,李慧英,闫素梅.反刍动物饲料纤维物质瘤胃降解规律研究进展[J].畜牧与饲料科学,2011,32(7):28-31.

[21] 龙瑞军,董世魁,王元,等.反刍动物采食量的概念与研究方法[J].草业学报,2003,12(5):8-17.

[22] 袁翠林,于子洋,王文丹.等.山东省羊常用粗饲料营养价值评定[J].草业学报,2015,24(6):220-226.

[23] SANTOS S A,DE CAMPOS VALADARES FILHO S,DETMANN E,et al.Different forage sources for F1 Holstein×Gir dairy cows[J].Livestock Science,2011,142(1/2/3):48-58.

[24] SOUSA D O,MESQUITA B S,DINIZ-MAGALHÃES J,et al.Effect of fiber digestibility and conservation method on feed intake and the ruminal ecosystem of growing steers[J].Journal of Animal Science,2014,92(12):5622-5634.  

[25] 余梅,刘建勇,赵刚,等.补饲精料对采食甘蔗梢青贮水牛消化代谢的影响[J].云南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2013,28(4):470-475.

[26] 颜琼娴,谭支良.反刍动物内源磷排泄量及磷真消化率的研究进展[J].华北农学报,2009,24(增刊1):231-235.

[27] 赵明明.肉用绵羊常用粗饲料原料代谢能的预测模型研究[D].硕士学位论文.乌鲁木齐:新疆农业大学,2016.

[28] 张吉鹍.粗饲料分级指数参数的模型化及粗饲料科学搭配的组合效应研究[D].博士学位论文.呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2004.
Outlines

/