Compare the effect of different levels of pea(Cicer arietinum) grains on performance of Dahlag and crossbred of Romanov -Dalagh Lambs

Authors

1 Ph.D student in Animal Nutrition, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources

2 Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources

3 null

Abstract

Background and objectives: The largest expense in the livestock industry is related to feed costs, which accounts for about 70-60% of all current costs. Utilizing new sources of energy and protein can help reduce these costs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the performance and digestibility of lambs Dalagh and crossbred of Romanov- Dalagh lambs by replacing pea seed with barley and soybean meal in ratio.
Material and methods: This experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with 3 × 2 factorial arrangement with three types of diets including 0, 10 and 20% pea seed and two breeds of Dalagh and crossbred of Romanov-Dalagh. In order to implement the design were used from 15 Dalagh and crossbred of Dalagh-Romanov lambs with an average weight of 5: 30.66 ± 2.30 and 24.2 ± 1.5 kg that were kept individually for 84 days (plus 15 days of habitually). Weighning and feed intake was carried out and the finally were evaluated the carcass and the digestibility of feed for each treatments. All statistical analyzes were performed in mixed regression (Proc Mixed) in SAS software version 9/1.
Results: There was no significant difference between treatments for weight gain (P> 0.05). In pure Dalagh, control and 20% pea treatments, with 294 and 265 grams per day had the highest and lowest daily weight gain respectively. In Dalagh breed, the lowest and the highest final weights were in pea and control treatments with a mean of 49.5 and 52.6 kg (P> 0.05). Also, in crossbred Romanov-Dalagh, the highest and lowest daily gain was observed in pea and control group with a mean of 294 and 288 g /day, respectively (P> 0.05). The average daily gain in two breeds in the control, 10 and 20 % of the pea treatments, were 299.5, 27.3 and 798.8 grams, respectively. The digestibility of feed in three treatments did not differ significantly. Percentage and carcass weight in Dalagh breed decreased with increase in pea in feed, unlike in crossbred Romanov-Dalagh.
Conclusion: The use of chickpea seed instead of soybeans and barley did not decrease fattening performance; In addition, the digestibility was almost the same as the control group. Fattening performance and digestibility of feed in crossbred Romanov-Dalagh was better than that of pure Dalagh. In general, it can be said that the replacement of chickpea seeds with existing import restrictions can help to significantly contribute to the sheep's fattening industry.

Keywords

References

  1.  Anderson, V.L., Lardy, G. P. and Ilse, B. R. 2007. Review: Field pea grain for beef cattle. The Professional Animal Scientist. 23: 1–7.

    1. Attia, R.S., El-Tabey Shehata, A.M., Aman, M.E. and Hamza, M.A. 1994. Effect of cooking and decortication on the physical properties, the chemical composition and the nutritive value of chickpea (Cicer arietinum ). Food Chemistry. 50: 125–131.
    2. Brook, D.S., Tiosing, B.J. and Holmes, J.H.G. Barley and field peas for lot-fed lambs Australian Society of Animal Production. 21: 258-261.
    3. Chavan, J.K., Kadam, S.S. and Salunkhe, D.K. 1989. Chickpea. In: Salunkhe, D.K., Kadam, S.S. (Eds.), CRC Handbook of World Food Legumes: Nutritional Chemistry, Processing Technology and Utilization, vol. I. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, USA. Pp: 247–288.
    4. Encinias, A.M., Scheaffer, A.N., Radunz, A.E.,  Bauer, M.L., Lardy, G.P.  and Caton, J.S. 2000. Influence of field pea supplementation on intake and performance of gestating beef cows fed grass hay diets. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 80: 766–767.
    5. Ghoorchi, T., Lund,P., Larsen, M., Hvelplund, T., Hansen-Moller, J. and Weisbjerg, M. R. 2013. Assesment of mobile bag method for estimating of in vivo starch digestibility. Animal: 265-271.
    6. Hadjipanayiotou, M. 2002. Replacement of soybean meal and barley grain by chickpeas in lamb and kid fattening diets. Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology. 96: 103–109.
    7. Lanza, M., Bella, M., Barbagallo, D., Fasone, V., Finocchiaro, L. and Priolo, A. 2003. Effect of partially or totally replacing soybean meal and maize by chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) in lamb diets: growth performances, carcass and meat quality. Animal Research. 52: 263–270.
    8. Lardy, G. P., Loken, B. A., Anderson, V. L., Larson, D. M., Maddock-Carlin, K. R., Ilse, B. R., Maddock R., Leupp, J. L., Clark, R., Paterson, J. A. and Bauer, M. L. 2009. Effects of increasing field pea (Pisum sativum) level in high-concentrate diets on growth performance and carcass traits in finishing steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science. 87: 3335–3341.
    9. Loe, E.R., Bauer, M.L., Lardy, G.P., Caton, J.S. and P.T. Berg. 2004. Field pea (Pisum sativum) inclusion in corn-based lamb finishing diets. Small Ruminant Research. 53: 39–45.
    10. Maheri-Sis, N., Chamani, M., Sadeghi, A.A., Mirza-Aghazadeh, A. and Aghajanzadeh-Golshani, A. 2008. Nutritional evaluation of Kabuli and desi type chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) for ruminants using in vitro gas production technique. African Journal of Biotechnology. 7: 2946–2951.
    11. Mihailovic, V., Mikic, A., Eric, P., Vasiljevic, S., Cupina, B. and Katic, S. 2005.Protein pea in animal feeding, Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry. 21: 5-6.
    12. Mustafa, A.F., Thacker, P.A., McKinnon, J.J., Christensen, D.A. and Racz, V.J., 2000. Nutritional value of feed grade chickpeas for ruminants and pigs. Journal of the Science of  Food and Agriculture. 80: 1581–1588.
    13. National Research Council. 2007. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. Washington,DC, National Academic Press.
    14. Pesta, A.C., Titlow, A.H. Hansen, J.A., Berger, A.L., Furman, S.A., Luebbe, M.K., Erickson, G.E. and K.H. Jenkins. 2012. Effects of feeding field peas in combination with distillers grains plus solubles in finishing and growing diets on cattle performance and carcass characteristics. The Professional Animal Scientist. 28: 534-540.
    15. Reed, J.J., Lardy, G.P., Bauer, M.L., Gilbery, T.C. and Caton, J.S. 2004. Effect of field pea level on intake, digestion, microbial efficiency, ruminal fermentation, and in situ disappearance in beef steers fed forage-based diets. Journal of Animal science. 82: 2185–2192.
    16. Smith, L.A., Houdijk, J.G.M., Homer, D. and Kyriazakis, I. 2013. Effects of dietary inclusion of pea and fava bean as a replacement for soybean meal on grower and finisher pig performance and carcass quality. Journal of Animal Science. 91: 3733-3741.
    17. Soto-Navarro, S.A., Williams, G.J., Bauer, M.L., Lardy, G.P., Landblom, G. and Caton, J.S. 2004. Effect of field pea replacement level on intake and digestion in beef steers fed by-product-based medium-concentrate diets. Journal of Animal science. 82: 1855–1862.
    18. Statistical Analysis System. 2003. SAS Institute Inc. Release 9.1. SAS, Cary, NC, USA.
    19. Stein, H.H., Everts, A.K.R., Sweeter, K.K., Peters, D.N., Maddock, R.J., Wulf, D.M. and Pedersen, C. 2006. The influence of dietary field peas on pig performance, carcass quality, and the palatability of pork. Journal of Animal Science. 84(11): 3110-3117.
    20. Thacker, P.A., Qiao, S. and Racz, V. 2002. A comparison of the nutrient digestibility of Desi and Kabuli chickpeas fed to swine. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 82: 1312–1318.
    21. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. 1991.Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science. 74: 3583–359.
Journal of Ruminant Research
Volume 8, Issue 1
June 2020
Pages 95-108

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics