EFFECT OF FEEDING FORMALDEHYDE TREATED RAPESEED MEAL TO GROWING CROSSBRED CALVES
Loading...
Date
2008
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
AAU, Anand
Abstract
Eighteen crossbred (Holstein Friesian x Kankrej, Jersey x Kankrej and Holstein Friesian x Jersey x Kankrej) calves were selected from the farms of Animal Nutrition Research Department and Livestock Research Station, Anand Agricultural University, Anand and were individually fed for 15 days preliminary feeding and 120 days experimental period to meet their energy and protein requirement as per NRC (2001) standards. They were randomly divided into two groups and assigned to two dietary treatments (T1 and T2) on age and body weight basis and were fed respectively two rations both comprising of concentrate mixture formulated as per BIS Type II standard and mature pasture grass (Dicanthium annulatum) and in addition, the calves under the control group (T1) were given calculated quantity of untreated rapeseed meal where as the calves under treatment group (T2) were given formaldehyde treated rapeseed meal. The initial body weight in T1 and T2 groups was 111.84 ± 8.01 and 113.78 ± 7.00 kg, respectively. The average total gain in body weight in calves of T1 and T2 groups during the entire experiment was 50.82 ± 0.73 and 70.42 ±0.73kg and the respective average.daily gain was 423.51 ± 11.80 and 586.81 ± 10.45g indicating significantly (P<0.05) higher gain in T2 group. Similarly, the gain in heart girth of T2 calves was statistically (P<0.05) better than T1 group, but the groups did not differ with respect to gain in body length and height. The digestion trial of 7 days collection period was conducted at the end of the feeding trial. The average DM intake of calves in T1 and T2 groups was 3.94±0.06 and 4.69±0.12 kg/day and when expressed as kg/100kg b.wt. was 2.66±0.11 and 2.97±0.10 and in terms of g/kg w0.75 was recorded as 92.76±2.84 and 104.98±2.60. The DM intake was statistically (P>0.05) different when expressed as daily intake and as g/kg w0.75 The average volume of water daily ingested (L/head) was 17.29±1.27 and 20.04±0.96 in groups T1 and T2, respectively, which was statistically similar. The average digestibility coefficients of nutrients in T1 and T2 groups were DM (55.89 ± 0.53 and 58.21 ± 0.33); OM (57.88 ± 0.47 and 59.98 ± 0.23); CF (55.15±0.46 and 57.43 ± 0.42) and EE (58.06 ± 1.70 and 62.67 ± 0.37) were significantly (P<0.05) higher in treatment group than the control, except those for NFE (61.54 ± 0.29 and 62.42 ± 0.47), CP (61.36 ± 0.56 and 61.59 ± 0.25 %) being statistically similar. The TDN content in T1 and T2 (56.02 ± 0.75 and 56.58 ± 0.20%) were also statistically similar. The intake of nutrients in T1 and T2 groups as per cent of requirement (NRC, 2001) in terms of CP (103.56 ± 3.63 and 121.47 ± 4.50) and TDN (92.15 ± 2.86 and 99.10 ± 2.01), during the digestion trial was statistically (P<0.05) different. During the experimental period, the cumulative intake (kg/head) of DM (452.24 ± 6.08 and 519.57±14.02) was similar, but that of CP (61.02 ± 1.53 and 79.04 ± 2.45), DCP (37.47 ± 1.12 and 48.68 ± 1.55) and TDN (253.27 ± 2.91 and 291.82 ± 8.22) were statistically (P<0.05) lower in T1 compared to T2 group. The feed conversion efficiency (kg/kg gain) for DM (8.68±0.99 and 7.53±0.82) and TDN (5.01 ± 0.09 and 4.15 ± 0.11) was better (P<0.05) in T2 group as compared to T1 group, however, they did not differ with respect to CP (1.21±0.04 and 1.11±0.04). The feed cost (Rs/head/d) was 19.99±0.38 and 27.41±0.81 which was statistically (P<0.05) higher in T2 compared to T1 group , however, when worked out as Rs./kg gain it was Rs. 47.29±1.13 and 46.74±1.46 in control and treatment group, which was statistically (P<0.05) similar. The results indicated that compared to untreated meal inclusion of HCHO treated rapeseed meal in mature pasture grass (Dicanthium annulatum) based ration of growing crossbred calves resulted in better growth, nutrient utilization and feed conversion efficiency without any increment in the feed cost.
Description
Keywords
ANIMAL NUTRITION, A STUDY