Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:05:24.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the nutritive value and acceptability of peat in the diet of lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. E. Enueme ,
P. E. Waibel  and
R. D. Goodrich
J. E. Enueme
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, 1404 Gortner Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108, USA
P. E. Waibel
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, 1404 Gortner Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108, USA
R. D. Goodrich
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, 1404 Gortner Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108, USA
Get access

Abstract

Lambs were fed diets in which peat replaced equivalent alfalfa hay. Gains were depressed by proportionately 0·14, 0·32 and 0·56 due to 100, 200 and 300 g peat per kg, respectively, during a 63-day feeding period. Lambs fed peat required more dry matter per unit gain. Necropsy examination of heart, kidney, liver, spleen, lung, and pancreas revealed no gross abnormalities from feeding of peat. Rib eye area was reduced at 200 and 300 g dietary peat per kg. There were no differences in taste of cooked loin sections due to peat. These studies support the safety of feeding peat for use as a dietary carrier at 20 to 30 glkg diet or as a dietary diluent at higher levels.

Keywords

growthlambsmeat qualitypeat
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , October 1990 , pp. 415 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

REFERENCES

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis. 14th ed.Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enueme, J. E., Waibel, P. E., Farnham, R. S. and Halvorson, J. C. 1987a. Evaluation of peat as a dietary component for turkeys. Poultry Science 66: 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enueme, J. E., Waibel, P. E. and Farnham, R. S. 1987b. Use of peat as a bedding material and dietary component for torn turkeys. Poultry Science 66: 1508–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D. A. 1973. The two-way layout. In Non-Parametric Statistical Methods, pp. 139–146. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Garrett, W. N., Meyer, J. H. and Lofgreen, G. P. 1959. The comparative energy requirements of sheep and cattle for maintenance and gain. Journal of Animal Science 18: 528–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerino, H. K. and Van soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agriculture Handbook, US Department of Agriculture, No. 379.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1984. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar