4.3 Article

Response to dietary tannin challenges in view of the browser/grazer dichotomy in an Ethiopian setting: Bonga sheep versus Kaffa goats

期刊

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
卷 48, 期 1, 页码 125-131

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-015-0931-3

关键词

Digestibility; Goat; Nutrition; Polyethylene glycol; Sheep; Tannin

资金

  1. Institutional University Cooperation project of the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR-UOS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been suggested that goats (typical browser) are better adapted to digest tannin-rich diets than sheep (typical grazer). To evaluate this, Bonga sheep and Kaffa goats were used in a 2x3 randomized crossover design with two species, three diets, and three periods (15-day adaptation+7-day collection). The dietary treatments consisted of grass-based hay only (tannin-free diet=FT), a high-tannin diet (36 % Albizia schimperiana (AS)+9 % Ficus elastica (FE)+ 55 % FT (HT)), and HT+polyethylene glycol 6000 (PEG). Animals were individually fed at 50 g dry matter (DM)/kg body weight (BW) and had free access to clean drinking water and mineralized salt licks. Nutrient intake, apparent nutrient digestibility, nutrient conversion ratios, and live weight changes were determined. Condensed tannin concentrations in AS and FE were 110 and 191 g/kg DM, respectively. Both sheep and goats ate 47 % more of HT than FT, and dry matter intake further increased by 9 % when PEG was added, with clear difference in effect size between goats and sheep (P<0.001). The effects of the tannin-rich diet and PEG addition were similarly positive for DM digestibility between sheep and goats, but crude protein (CP) digestibility was higher in HT+PEG-fed goats than in sheep fed the same diet. However, PEG addition induced a larger improvement in growth performance and feed efficiency ratio in sheep than in goat (P<0.001). The addition of PEG as a tannin binder improved digestion and performance in both species, but with the highest effect size in sheep.

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