|
|
||||||||
Journal of Animal Science, Vol 77, Issue 3 507-515, Copyright © 1999 by American Society of Animal Science
JOURNAL ARTICLE |
S. Hejazi, F. L. Fluharty, J. E. Perley, S. C. Loerch and G. D. Lowe
Food Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center and The Ohio State University, Wooster 44691, USA.
In Exp. 1, early-weaned Targhee and Polypay crossbred lambs (60 ewes and 66 rams; initial BW 24 +/- 1.0 kg) were used in a 2 x 3 factorial experiment to determine the effects of corn processing (whole shelled corn [WSC] or ground and pelleted corn [GC]) in combination with supplemental fiber (none [control]; soybean hulls, SBH [highly digestible]; or peanut hulls, PH [highly indigestible]) on DMI, ADG, feed efficiency, and visceral organ weight. For the total trial, WSC resulted in a 4% increase (P < .01) in ADG vs GC, and supplemental fiber resulted in increased (P < .01) DMI and ADG vs the control diet. Experiment 2 was conducted using 12 Targhee and Polypay crossbred wether lambs (initial BW 25 +/- 7 kg) to determine the effects of corn processing and fiber source in high-concentrate diets on diet digestibility and N retention using the same diets as in Exp. 1. Lambs fed WSC had greater (P < .001) apparent N digestion, true N digestion, and N retention (P < .01) than those fed GC. The apparent digestibilities of DM, OM, and NDF were greater (P < .001) for WSC than for GC diets. Peanut hulls resulted in decreased (P < .01) DM, OM, and NDF apparent digestibilities compared with the control and SBH diets. Starch digestion was not affected (P > .10) by diet. Whole corn resulted in improved DM, OM, NDF, and N digestibility compared with GC. Overall, both the SBH and PH diets resulted in greater DMI and ADG than the control diet, which lacked supplemental fiber.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. I. Orr, J. C. Henley, and B. J. Rude The Substitution of Corn with Soybean Hulls and Subsequent Impact on Digestibility of a Forage-Based Diet Offered to Beef Cattle Professional Animal Scientist, December 1, 2008; 24(6): 566 - 571. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |