HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Aderibigbe, A. O. Articles by Church, D. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Aderibigbe, A. O. Articles by Church, D. C.

Feather and Hair Meals for Ruminants. II. Comparative Evaluation of Feather and Hair Meals as Protein Supplements^1,2,

Oregon State University, Corvallis 97331

Abstract

In vitro and in vivo digestion trials and a feedlot performance trial were conducted to compare cottonseed meal (CSM) with feather meal (FM) and hair meal (HM) as protein supplements for ruminants. In vitro rumen studies compared diets with roughage to concentrate ratios (R:C) ranging from 0:100 to 100:0 with similar diets unsupplemented or supplemented with commercial FM, special FM, commercial FM plus urea or commercial HM. Dry matter digestion was in the order of commercial HM > special FM = commercial FM plus urea > commercial FM > control. All protein supplements were utilized to a greater extent at the lower R:C ratios. Ammonia-N concentration suggested FM and HM proteins might not be readily soluble in the rumen. The in vivo digestion trial and performance trial (30 wether and 30 ewe lambs) compared a negative control diet with no added protein with similar diets in which CSM, commercial FM, commercial HM and three differently hydrolyzed turkey feather meals (HTF-A, -B and -C) supplied 50% of the total N in respective diets. Only the wether lambs were slaughtered at the end of the performance trial for evaluation of carcass traits. Protein utilization (digestibility and N retention) ranged in the order: commercial FM > CSM = HM > basal. Data from the performance trial showed that the final weights, live and carcass average daily gains and dressing percentages were higher and feed conversion (kg feed/kg gain) was lower for animals fed HM and HTF-C (hydrolyzed at 3.16 kg/cm² for 90 min; pepsin digestibility, 78%) diets than for those fed other diets. Feed consumption also favored the HM diet. Costs of gains were lower for the FM and HM diets than for the CSM diet. The study demonstrated that FM and HM (when properly processed) were superior to CSM (per unit of N basis) when fed as the only protein supplement in diets for ruminants.

¹ Tech. Paper No. 5932, Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta.

² Partial support supplied by Fats and Proteins Research Foundation Inc., Des Plaines, IL.

³ Dept. of Anim. Sci., Univ. of IFE, ILE-IFE, Oyo State, Nigeria, Africa.

⁴ Dept. of Anim. Sci.