Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T13:12:56.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of diets differing in the ratio of nolassed sugar beet feed to barley and yeast culture on growth and rumen metabolism of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2017

Y. Rouzbehan
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture
J.A. Rooke
Affiliation:
Animal and Feed Technology Dept., SAC Aberdeen
H. Galbraith
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen, 581 King Street, Aberdeen AB9 1UD
J.G. Perrott
Affiliation:
Trident Feeds, PO Box 11, Peterborough.
Get access

Extract

The efficiency of conversion of Metabolisable Energy into live weight gain by growing sheep may be improved by the partial substitution of fibrous diets with barley. This effect is associated with a reduction in the ratio of acetate to propionate in rumen fluid. Previous studies (Galbraith et al. 1988, 1989) have investigated responses of lambs to combinations of molassed sugar beet feed (MSBF) and barley and found a ratio of 0·75:0·25 MSBF:barley to be as effective as 0·25:0·75 when the diets were ground and pelleted.The incorporation of the yeast culture product, Yea-sacc, has been associated with increases in the concentrations of propionate in the rumen and variable growth responses in ruminants. The objectives of the present study were to investigate diets for finishing lambs which differed in the ratios of pelleted shreds of MSBF and barley and the effects of supplementation with Yea-sacc on growth, rumen metabolites and the physical properties of the diets.

Type
Ruminant Metabolism
Copyright
Copyright © The British Society of Animal Production 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Muinga, R.W., Thorpe, W. and Topps, J.H. 1992a. Tropical Animal Health and Production (In press).Google Scholar
Muinga, R.W., Thorpe, W. and Topps, J.H. 1992b. Animal Production 55: 331337.Google Scholar