An-Najah National University Collage of Graduate Studies Comparison Among Protein Levels and Sources on Performance and Carcass Traits of Assaf Lambs By Omar Khaleel Ibraheem Naser Supervisor Prof. Dr. Jamal Abo Omar This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements For The Degree of Master In Animal Production, Faculty of Graduate Studies at An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine. 2010 II Comparison Among Protein Levels and Sources on Performance and Carcass Traits of Assaf Lambs By Omar Khaleel Ibraheem Naser This Thesis was defended successfully on 21/01/2010 and approved by III Dedication This project is dedicated to my parents, brothers, sisters and my wife and kids; the completion of this work was not possible without their support and help. IV Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest respect and most sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Jamal Abo Omar, for his guidance and encouragement at all stages of my work. Another word of special thanks goes to Hebron University especially for all those in the Faculty of Agriculture. I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my mother, brothers and sisters for their support. My fervent thanks extended also to my wife and kids. V رارــاإلق :أنا الموقع أدناه مقدم الرسالة التي تحمل العنوان Comparison Among Protein Levels and Sources on Performance and Carcass Traits of Assaf Lambs من البروتين على أداء وصفات ين مختلفدرين ومصينمقارنة بين مستوي ذبائح خراف العساف مـا تمـت عليه هذه الرسالة إنما هو نتاج جهدي الخـاص، باسـتثناء أقر بأن ما اشتملت اإلشارة إلية حيثما ورد، وان هذه الرسالة ككل، أو أي جزء منها لم يقدم من قبل لنيل أية درجـة .علمية أو بحث علمي أو بحثي لدى أية مؤسسة تعليمية أو بحثية أخرى Declaration The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher's own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree or qualification. Student's name:………………………………………………...: اسم الطالب Signature:…………………………………………………………..: التوقيع Date:....................................................................................................: التاريخ VI Table of Contents Committee Decision II Dedication III Acknowledgments IV Declaration V List of Tables VIII List of Figures IX List of Abbreviations X Abstract XI Overview 1 Chapter One 3 1 Introduction 3 2 Literature Review 5 2.1 Sunflower seed meal for growing lambs 5 2.1.1 Sunflower seed meal composition 5 2.1.2 Protein in sunflower seed meal 7 2.1.3 Energy in sunflower seed meal 7 2.2 Effect of SBM and SFM on carcasses 9 2.3 Effect of feeding SFM as a replacement of SBM on digestibility 10 2.4 Effect of replacing SBM with SFM for fattening lambs 11 Chapter Two 13 3 Materials and Methods 13 3.1 Animal management and experimental design 13 3.2 Chemical composition of experimental rations 17 3.3 Slaughtering procedure 18 3.4 Non-carcass components measurements 18 3.5 Carcass and chilled components measurements 19 VII 3.6 Measuring of the digestibility for the fattening rations 21 3.7 Chemical analysis 21 3.8 Statistical analysis 22 Chapter Three 23 4 Results and Discussion 23 4.1 Lamb fattening 23 4.1.1 Body weight changes (Table 5, figure 3) 23 4.1.2 Feed intake (Table 6, figure 4) 25 4.1.3 Average daily gain (Table 7, figure 5 and 6) 28 4.1.4 Feed conversion (Table 8, figure 7) 31 4.2 Carcass characteristics and non-carcass components 33 4.2.1 Dressing percentage (Table 9, figure 8) 33 4.2.2 Carcass cuts measurements (Table 10) 35 4.2.3 Edible parts (Table 11) 37 4.2.4 Non-edible parts (Table 12 and 13) 38 4.3 Economical evaluation: 40 4.4 Digestibility (Table 15) 41 5 Conclusion and recommendations 43 6 Appendix 44 Appendix 1 44 Appendix 2 45 Appendix 3 46 Appendix 4 47 Appendix 5 48 Appendix 6 49 7 References 50 ب الملخص بالعربية VIII List of Tables Table No. Title Page Table (1) Nutrient content of solvent extracted sunflower meal based on amount of hulls retained. 6 Table (2) Protein and energy fractions for sunflower seed meal, soybean meal, and canola meal. 8 Table (3) Composition of the total mixed ration (TMR) fed to fattening lambs according to the experimental groups. 15 Table (4) Chemical composition of experimental rations. 17 Table (5) Average live weight changes during 8 weeks feeding trial (kg). 23 Table (6) Average feed intake during the 8 weeks feeding trial (g/day). 25 Table (7) Average weight gain (g/day) for lambs fed SBM and SFM at two crude protein levels. 28 Table (8) Feed conversion (kg feed/kg gain) in Assaf lambs fed SBM and SFM (14% & 18% CP) during 8 weeks. 31 Table (9) Dressing percentage in hot carcass for Assaf lambs fed SBM at two crude protein levels (14% & 18%). 33 Table (10) Carcass cuts measurements as (g/kg empty body weight, EBW). 35 Table (11) Edible parts of carcass for the treatments groups (g/kg EBW). 37 Table (12) Weight of the non-edible parts of carcass for the different treatments (g/kg EBW). 38 Table (13) Weight of dry and wet tissue of digestive tract for the different treatments (g/kg EBW). 39 Table (14) Economical evaluation, growth characters and performance of Assaf lambs fed SBM and SFM at two crude protein levels. 40 Table (15) Effect of dietary protein source and crude protein level on digestibility of DM, CP, EE and OM of the experiment ration. 41 IX List of Figures Figure No. Title Page Figure 1 The experimental site. 16 Figure 2 Cuts of the lamb half carcass. Leg, Loin, Rib, Shoulder, Breast, Neck, and Shank. 20 Figure 3 Average weight changes during 8 weeks feeding trial (kg). 24 Figure 4 Average feed intake of lambs fed two sources of protein at low and high levels (g/day) as fed basis. 26 Figure 5 Average weight gain (g/day) for lambs fed at SBM (14% and 18% CP). 29 Figure 6 Average weight gain (g/day) for lambs fed at SFM (14% and 18% CP. 29 Figure 7 Feed conversion (kg feed/kg gain) for lambs fed SBM and SFM (14% & 18% CP) during 8 weeks. 31 Figure 8 Hot dressing percentage of lambs fed SBM and SFM at two crude protein levels (14% & 18%). 33 X List of Abbreviations ADF Acid Detergent Fiber ADG Average Dailey Gain BWG Body Weight Gain Ca Calcium CF Crude Fiber CGF Corn Gluten Feed CP Crude Protein DE Digestible Energy DMI Dry Matter Intake EE Ether Extract FE Feed Efficiency FCR Feed Conversion Ratio GE Gross Energy IBW Initial Body Weight ME Metabolized Energy MJ Mega Joule NDF Neutral Detergent Fiber NFE Nitrogen Free Extract NIS New Israeli Shekel P Phosphorus SBM Soybean Meal SFM Sunflower Meal TDN Total Digestible Nutrients TMR Total Mixed Ration XI Comparison Among Protein Levels and Sources on Performance and Carcass Traits of Assaf Lambs By Omar Khaleel Ibraheem Naser Supervisor Prof. Dr. Jamal Abo Omar Abstract Twenty male Assaf lambs were used, in this experiment, to investigate the effects of feeding sunflower meal (SFM) as a substitute for soybean meal (SBM) in rations at two crude protein (CP) levels (14 and 18% as fresh basis) on the feedlot performance, (average daily gain, feed conversion ratio, visceral organs, some carcass merits and digestibility), of fattening Assaf lambs. Lamb’s average initial body weight was 29.04 kg (S.D. = 4.69 kg). Lambs were randomly divided into four groups of five lambs in each group. Lambs were fed in morning and evening individually with total mixed rations (TMR), and was considered as replicate. Lambs in groups 1 and 2 were fed fattening rations where soybean meal is the source of protein at two CP levels, 14 and 18%. However, lambs in groups 3 and 4 were fed fattening ration similar to the first two groups except that sun flower meal was the protein source. Lambs were weighted on a weekly basis. Body weight change, feed intake, average daily gain and different XII carcass traits were determined. In addition, visceral organ mass as well as dressing percentage and carcass cuts were also measured. Major nutrients digestibility was determined through conduction of a digestion trial. From the first week until the eighth week of the trial, the lambs fed with the 18% CP SBM ration recorded the highest (P<0.05) weight (48.79 kg) compared to lambs fed with the 18% CP SFM ration which showed the lowest weights (43.45 kg). The mean weight gain in lambs fed with the14% CP SFM was similar to that of lambs fed with both crude protein levels of SBM. The weight change tends to decline as SFM level increased after 4 weeks compared to other treatments. Furthermore, the highest average feed intake was observed in the 14% CP SFM and the lowest was with 18% CP SBM. Digestibility of DM and, CP were similar among all treatment rations, but level of protein and source had no effect on EE and OM digestibility. There were no significant differences in the average final body weight (FBW), average daily gain (ADG) and average feed conversion ratios (FCR) among the treatments. Results also showed that source and level of protein had a significant effect on average leg and shoulder weights. Lambs fed with 18% CP SFM had the highest weight loss during carcass chilling at 3◦C for 24 hr., while the 14% CP SFM had the lowest weight loss value. However, there were significant differences (P<0.05) between hot and cold carcass weights. Level of SBM had a significant effect on lung average weights. However, liver average weights were significantly by protein XIII source (14% CP of SBM vs. 18% CP SFM). Heart average weights were not affected by type or level of protein. In general, this study further confirmed that SFM could replace SBM as a protein source; also increasing protein level will not result in any improvement in lamb performance. 1 Overview Fattening process is very important in local animal production sector. The income from fattening operation was estimated to be more than 50% of total income generated from animal sector (MoA, 2000). Soybean meal (SBM) is the main protein source in animal rations (Schingoethe et al., 1977). Utilizing SBM was satisfactory in almost all systems as well as in nutritional experimental (Stake et al., 1973). As a result, soybean is usually used as a reference feedstuff for comparison with other feedstuffs (Green and Kiener, 1989). However, high prices of SBM in some parts of the world and fluctuation in its production have raised the interest in alternative protein sources for feeding livestock. Meanwhile, the importance of sunflower seed meal (SFM) as a high quality feed is increasing. World production of sunflower seeds is ranked fourth in oil seeds production (Zhang and Parsons, 1994). Chemical analysis of sunflower seeds differs according to their cultivar, soil characteristics, climatic conditions and seeds processing. Despite these wide variations, on average, sunflower meal contains 30–40% CP, 13–15% CF, and 11.8 MJ ME (Nishino et al., 1980; Richardson et al., 1981). Recently, SFM is becoming available in Palestine for animal nutrition and as a by-product of extraction of sunflower oil locally. SFM could be used as a substitute for SBM. Sunflower seed meal could be partially used as a substitute for SBM. 2 As a protein supplement, SFM could replace SBM in rations of growing and fattening lambs with similar gain and feed efficiency (Erickson et al., 1980; Richardson et al., 1981). Economides and Koumas (1999) concluded that SFM could successfully replace SBM in lamb fattening diets. No differences were found in digestibility of CP, CF and ADF. However, digestibility of DM, OM, NDF and NFE was lowest with the SFM-based diet (Eweedah et al., 1996). It looks like the response to the SFM varied due to wide variation in chemical composition. Any attempts to reduce the high input cost will be of essential importance. Protein levels in local fattening rations are questionable since the majority of fattening rations have high protein content which results in higher cost of feeds. On the other hand, local farmers are hesitant in using cheaper alternative protein sources with low crude protein levels (14%) or alternative plant protein sources such as SFM and corn gluten feed CGF. Therefore, this experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of feeding two levels of SFM and SBM on lamb performance, feed conversion, feed intake, nutrient digestibility, carcass traits, visceral organ of Assaf lambs as well as the economic saving that can be achieved. 3 Chapter One 1. Introduction Livestock sector is an important branch for the Palestinian national economy. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there are two main breeds of sheep: Awassi and Assaf. In the Mediterranean area, the protein and energy requirements of fast- growing, intensively fattened lambs are usually satisfied by soybean and maize, respectively. Both are major ingredients in the manufactured concentrates which is mainly imported at high costs. The main problem facing the sector of animal production, in Palestinian National Authority, is the limited feed sources. Feeding contributed more than 70% of the total production costs in any livestock operation (Abo Omar, 1998). In addition, the dramatic restriction in the use of animal protein produced a gap in protein supply for ruminants compared to the increasing demand for animal protein (Wilkins et al., 2000). Profitability of lamb's production is dependent on reducing input costs and/or increasing production output. Any reduction in feed intake or increase in feed efficiency without compromising growth rate or carcass quality can have a significant positive economic impact on lamb production (Snowder and Van Vleck, 2003). Increasing energy density in diets for 4 lambs and kids showed improvement in feed efficiency and carcass characteristics (Haddad and Husein, 2004; Haddad, 2005). However, feeding very high grain diets to ruminants could induce acidosis (Owens et al., 1998). There is a need for additional protein for maximum performance in the growing and finishing period of lambs fattening (Scott, 1988). In the finishing period, lambs crude protein requirements range from 10 to 14.5% (NRC, 1985). Also, it is suggested that lambs between 15-40 kg of live weight need 17% dietary CP (Andrews and Qrskov, 1970). In other studies in which different crude protein levels were evaluated (10-18%), it was suggested that live weight gain of lambs increased by the higher dietary crude protein level, but feed conversion was decreased as protein level increased (Purroy et al., 1993; Muwalla et al., 1998; Haddad et al., 2001). Although, dry matter digestibility was not different among the different dietary crude protein levels (10-17%). Digestibility was higher in lambs fed with higher level of CP (Hart and Glimp, 1991; Kaya and Yalcin, 2000; Haddad et al., 2001; Dabiri and Thonney, 2004). 5 2. Literature Review 2.1 Sunflower seed meal for growing lambs 2.1.1 Sunflower seed meal composition: Sunflower seed meal is the fourth largest source of protein supplement which comes near to soybean, cottonseed, and canola meals (Hesley, 1994). Nutrients in sunflower meal can vary depending on several factors. The high fiber content of the SFM is responsible for its limited use, especially in ration of young ruminants (Villamide and San Juan, 1998). The amount and composition of SFM is affected by seed oil content, extent of hull removal and efficiency of oil extraction (Hesley, 1994). The proportion of hulls removed, before processing, can differ among crushing plants. In some cases, a portion of the hulls may be added back to the meal after crushing. The amount of hulls or fiber in the meal is the major source of nutrient variation (Table 1). Pre-press solvent extraction of whole seeds with no de-hulling produces meal with a crude protein content of 25 to 28 %. However, de-hulling yields 34 to 38 % crude protein content, while the completely de-hulled sunflower seed meal commonly yields 40 % crude protein. Up to 50 % crude protein has been observed (National Academy of Sciences, 1971). Sunflower seed meal is marketed and shipped as a meal or pelleted. Sunflower seed meal is dry and can be stored for extended periods of time without significant loss or degradation (Hesley, 1994). 6 Table (1): Nutrient content of solvent extracted sunflower meal based on amount of hulls retained. Composition (%) Hulled Partially De- hulled De-hulled Dry Matter 90.0 90.0 90.0 Dry matter basis Crude Protein 28.0 34.0 41.0 Fat 1.5 0.8 0.5 Crude Fiber 24.0 21.0 14.0 ADF 33 31 15 NDF 40 35 25 Ash 6.2 5.9 5.9 Calcium 0.36 0.35 0.34 Phosphorous 0.97 0.95 1.30 Potassium 1.07 1.07 1.07 Magnesium 0.80 0.79 0.79 Hesley (Ed.) National Sunflower Association, 1994 7 2.1.2 Protein in sunflower seed meal: Nitrogen required by rumen microbes can be provided in the form of rumen-degradable protein from sunflower meal. NRC (1996) reports an exceptionally low crude protein value for sunflower meal (Table 2). This value is not typical of current commercial meal production (Table 1). Heat treatment or toasting of meal from the solvent extraction process may increase the proportion of undegradable protein but there is little information on effects of heating and time of exposure. As shown in (Table 2), sunflower meal is more degradable (74% of crude protein) than soybean meal (66%) or canola meal (68%), (NRC, 1996). 2.1.3 Energy in sunflower seed meal: Metabolizable Energy (ME) contents of sunflower seed meal are lower than that of canola and soybean meal (NRC, 1996) (Table 2). Metabolizable Energy (ME) varies substantially with fiber level and residual oil content. Higher level of hulls included in the final meal product lower the energy content and reduces density. The mechanical process of oil extraction leaves more residual oil in the meal, often 5 to 6 percent or more, depending on the efficiency of the extraction process. Elevated oil content in mechanically-extracted meals provides greater energy density, which may be more valuable for animals with higher 8 nutrient requirements or where limited amounts of supplement are fed. Pre-press solvent extraction reduces residual oil to 1.5 % (Hesley, 1994). Table (2): Protein and energy fractions for sunflower seed meal, soybean meal, and canola meal. Meal Item % Sunflower Soybean Canola Dry matter basis Crude protein 26.0 49.9 40.9 Crude protein Rumen degradable 74.0 66.0 68.0 Rumen undegradable 26.0 34.0 22.0 Dry matter basis Crude fiber 12.7 7.0 13.3 Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) 40.0 14.9 27.2 Acid detergent fiber (ADF) 30.0 10.0 17.0 Digestible energy, Mcal/kg 2.87 3.70 3.04 Metabolizable energy, Mcal/kg 2.35 3.04 2.49 Net energy for maintenance, Mcal/kg 1.47 2.06 1.60 Net energy for gain, Mcal/kg 0.88 1.40 1.0 Total digestible nutrients (TDN) 65 84 69 NRC, 1996 9 Sunflower seed meal was compared to soybean meal and a sunflower-soybean meal mixture in isonitrogenous supplements in corn- based finishing diets that also contained 1 percent urea. The urea and sunflower meal provided adequate ruminal degradable nitrogen with the undegradable nitrogen provide by the corn (Milton et al., 1997). 2.2 Effect of SBM and SFM on carcasses Rizzi et al., (2002), showed that lambs given a diet included 20% sunflower seeds tend to have higher percentage of fat in the hind leg compared to animals fed diet containing 15% soybean. Santos-Silva et al., (2002), reported that the replacement of sunflower meal by expanded sunflower seed had no effect on lambs growth performance and carcass composition. Atti et al., (2003), showed that empty body weight, carcass weight, and dressing percentage were not affected by the increase of the crude protein in the ration. Altering fatty acid composition of ruminant muscles and adipose tissue may improve the nutritional value of these food products. Decreasing saturated and increasing unsaturated fatty acids in ruminant tissues has been accomplished by feeding soybeans (Rule and Beitz, 1986), sunflower seeds (Chang et al., 1992), and canola oil (Lough et al., 1992). 10 2.3 Effect of feeding SFM as a replacement of SBM on digestibility As the SFM portion increased in the ration, a little decrease in DM digestibility was reported, (Irshaid et al., 2003). Yet, this drop in digestibility was not significant. Using SFM as a protein source in fattening rations of lambs did not lower DM digestibility, (Irshaid et al., 2003). However, this result disagree with (Stake et al., 1973) who found that digestibility of DM for SBM diets fed to Holstein calves was significantly higher than SFM diets. However, protein digestibility for the two diets was not significantly different. Also, (Nishino et al., 1986) found that digestibility of DM was significantly lower in weaned calves fed SFM ration; but the digestibility of CP was not affected. On the other hand, (Eweedah et al., 1996) found that there were no significant differences between groups of lambs in digestibility of CP, CF and ADF, while digestibility of DM, OM, NDF and NFE was lowest with the SFM diet. The response to feeding SFM is associated with the wide variation in its chemical composition. 11 2.4 Effect of replacing SBM with SFM for fattening lambs Irshaid et al., (2003), showed that there was no significant difference in ADG or in final BW of lambs when replacing SBM by SFM. However, lambs fed SFM as a sole protein source gained numerically less than lambs fed SBM. Values for daily gain and total weight gain were non significant. However, ADG was higher for SBM fed lambs. Feed conversion for lambs fed SBM was slightly better than that for other lambs. Results of the experiment are in agreement with results obtained by (Erickson et al., 1980) who found that lamb performance based on gains and feed efficiencies were similar for SBM and SFM. Richardson et al., (1981) compared SFM and other meals and found that lambs fed diets containing either SFM, cottonseed meal or both had similar gain and feed efficiency. Rao et al., (1995) examined replacing groundnut cake protein with sunflower cake in complete rations for sheep and found that balanced low- cost complete diets could be formulated for sheep by replacing costly groundnut cake protein with sunflower cake. Economides and Koumas (1999) found that SFM could successfully replace SBM in the fattening diets of lambs. The results of these experiments showed that SFM could be incorporated in the ration of Awassi lambs and ewes without any harmful effect on the digestibility, voluntary intake and growth. According to these results, no reason restricts the usage of SFM for Awassi lambs and lactating 12 dairy ewes except price. Sunflower seed meal could be used as a protein supplement for feeding Awassi lambs and sheep with SBM or instead of SBM according to its availability and price. Feeding SFM for sheep may be encouraged as a replacement for SBM. The fatty acid composition of oilseeds varies; Sunflower seeds and safflower seeds are among the best sources of unsaturated fats: in fact these seeds contain 66 and 77 % linoleic acid, respectively, but no linolenic acid (0.3 - 1.1%, respectively). Soybeans contain less linoleic acid (55%) but 8% linolenic acid. These differences may suffice to alter the fatty acid composition of milk (Schingoethe et al., 1996) 13 Chapter Two 3. Materials and Methods 3.1 Animal management and experimental design: Twenty Assaf male lambs weighting approximately 29 kg were randomly divided equally into four feeding treatment groups. Lambs in each treatment were individually fed a total mixed ration (TMR), thus each lamb was considered as a replicate. Lambs in groups 1 and 2, lambs fed fattening rations with soybean meal as the major protein source (Table 3). Two crude protein levels (14 and 18%), are used. In groups 3 and 4, lambs were fed with sunflower meal as the major protein source and two CP levels 14 and 18%. Lambs were dosed against both internal and external parasites and were injected with enterotoxemial vaccine during the 10 days acclimation period also they were vaccinated against Clostridium Perfringens types C & D. Lamb’s weight was recorded weekly and feed intake was recorded daily. The trial lasted for 8 weeks. Rations were formulated to meet standard requirements stated by (NRC, 1985) requirements (Table 4). The experiment was conducted at the south western of Hebron city, 24 km from the center of the city. The elevation site is 467.87m above sea level; the geographical position is 34.56 East and 31.28 North (figure 1). 14 The experiment was conducted during late winter and early spring (February-April, 2009), with minimum and maximum ambient temperature ranging from 13.8◦C to 21.5◦C and, relative humidity (RH) from 42% to 91%. Lambs were housed individually at a 1.5 m2 pen (1.5×1.0 m)/lamb, with artificial light overnight. Lambs were acclimated to there rations for 10 days prior to the data collection. Feed was offered in the morning and evening. Orts and refusals were removed and recorded daily. Mineral blocks and fresh clean water were available all the times. Samples of the experimental rations were collected and stored for later chemical analysis. 15 Table (3): Composition of the total mixed ration (TMR) fed to fattening lambs according to the experimental groups. Source of protein supplement Soybean Meal Sunflower Meal Ingredient % G1 14% G2 18% G3 14% G4 18% Wheat straw 12 12 12 10 Ground corn 67 55.5 62 50 Soybean meal (SBM) 17 28 0 0 Sunflower meal (SFM) 0 0 22 36 Ammonium chloride 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Vegetable oil 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.2 Limestone 2.075 2.075 2.075 2.075 Sodium sulfate 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Chlortetracycline (AB) 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Salt (NaCl) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Vitamins premix 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total 100 100 100 100 16 Figure 1. The experimental site. Location 17 3.2 Chemical composition of experimental rations Result showed that the dry matter and organic matter content were the same in all rations while the fiber content in the SFM was higher compared to SBM. The nutrient detergent fiber (NDF) levels were higher in SBM compared to SFM. Table (4): Chemical composition of experimental rations. SBM ration (%) SFM ration (%) Ingredient % G1 14% G2 18% G3 14% G4 18% Dry matter (DM) 88.4 88.7 88.7 89.1 Organic Matter (OM) 82.9 81.9 83.0 82.6 Crude protein (CP) 16.01 20.51 16.21 20.21 Crude fiber (CF) 8.5 9.6 11.3 12.6 Ether extract (EE) 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.3 Nitrogen Free Extract (NFE) 53.9 48.3 52.2 46.5 NDF 65.0 76.2 46.6 43.1 ADF 5.5 8.3 12.0 16.3 Ash 5.5 6.8 5.7 6.5 Phosphorus (P) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 Calcium (Ca) 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 Metabolizable energy (kcal/kg)* 2830 2713 2675 2616 All data are on DM basis. 1 The % value calculated as DM basis. Fresh basis (14%, 18%, 14% and 18% CP respectively). *ME: Metabolizable Energy, calculated according to NRC (1985). 18 3.3 Slaughtering procedure: At the end of the trial, three lambs from each treatment were assigned at random for slaughter. Animals were fasted for 24 hours then slaughtered following the practices used in commercial slaughter houses. The following measurements were taken after slaughtering: 3.4 Non-carcass components measurements: After bleeding, killed animals were peeled and eviscerated according to routine dressing procedures. Weights of the following non-carcass components were from the body: heart, liver, lungs, trachea, spleen, gallbladder, kidney, kidney fat, hide, testicles and total gastrointestinal tract (esophagus, 4-compartment of stomach, cecum, small and large intestine) and also gastrointestinal tracts were sectioned for parts and fill. Both dry and wet tissues weight was measured. 19 3.5 Carcass and chilled components measurements: Hot carcass weight was recorded for all carcasses. Dressing percent- ages were calculated by dividing hot carcass weight by fasting live weight. Each carcass was carefully split longitudinally. The right side was cut into seven standardized commercial cuts (leg, rib, shoulder, lion, shank, breast and neck). Each cut was weighted. The rib eye muscle area was measured by using plastic slid grid. Lion tissue depth and tissue fat thickness were measured by using a millimeter grad ruler. 20 Figure 2. Cuts of the lamb half carcass. Leg, lion, rib, shoulder, breast, neck, and shank. 21 3.6 Measuring of the digestibility for the fattening rations: The digestibility of the four rations used was determined on twelve lambs; three lambs from each treatment group were selected at random for digestibility trial. The animals were kept in metabolic cages and fed the four rations that were used in the fattening. The rations were given ad libitum for adaptation and also for estimation of voluntary feed intake for 5 days which were considered as preliminary period and then 5 days of total feed and feces collection period. Fresh clean water was available to lambs all the time. Total fresh weight of feces for each animal was record daily and representative sample of 150 g was taken every day during the collection period. The samples of the fresh feces were collected in sealed (zib-log) bags then stored for later chemical analysis. 3.7 Chemical analysis: Chemical analysis was conducted according to the recommendation of (A.O.A.C. 1999). Feed and dried fecal samples were grounded by Wiley- Mill to pass through a 1 mm screen and analyzed for dry matter in a forced air oven at 105◦C for 24 hours. Crude protein was determined by Kjeldal method for nitrogen determination. Fibers (CF, NDF and ADF) were determined according to Van Soest methods. Crude fat was determined by 22 using Soxhlet extraction method. Samples were burned in a muffle furnace at 550◦C for 3 hours to determine ash content, calcium and phosphorus. Finally, the digestibility coefficient of: dry matter, organic matter, crude protein, crude fiber and nitrogen free extract (NFE) were measured for the experimental rations. 3.8 Statistical analysis: Data collected for feed intake, weight gain, carcass, non-carcass, and digestibility were analyzed by using General Linear Model (GLM), Factorial ANOVA in a balanced 2×2 factorial treatment (2 protein sources, SBM & SFM and 2 levels of protein, 14%&18%). Least square means for all variables in the study were calculated and the protected LSD test was used to determine significant differences (Statistica, 1995), significance was declared at P<0.05. 23 Chapter Three 4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Lamb fattening: 4.1.1 Body weight changes (Table 5, figure 3): Table (5): Average live weight changes during 8 weeks feeding trial (kg). ns: not significant (P>0.05). . SBM ration SFM ration Item (kg) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Initial BW 29.22 29.82 29.66 27.47 2.2 ns BW week1 30.74 31.81 31.68 29.78 2.2 ns BW week2 33.46 34.27 34.30 32.11 2.3 ns BW week3 36.34 36.32 35.92 33.52 2.4 ns BW week4 38.33 39.45 38.45 36.13 2.8 ns BW week5 40.84 41.37 40.36 38.10 2.6 ns BW week6 43.54 43.53 42.74 39.99 2.7 ns BW week7 45.68 46.37 45.04 41.57 2.9 ns Final BW 47.51 48.79 47.98 43.45 3.1 ns 24 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks A ve ra ge B od y w ie gh t (K g/ gr ou p/ w ee k) SBM 14% SBM 18% SFM 14% SFM 18% Figure 3. Average weight changes during 8 weeks feeding trial (kg). From the first weak until the end of the feeding trial, lambs fed the 18% CP SBM ration had the highest weights, (48.79 kg) compared to lambs fed with the 18% CP SFM (43.45 kg). The mean body weight gain in lambs fed the 14% CP SFM was similar to that of lambs fed both levels of SBM. As a general trend, the weight development tended to decline as SFM level increased. In addition, the changes of weight gain increased with time, but declined in lambs fed 18% CP SFM after 4 weeks compared to other treatments. In the same direction, (Haddad et al., 2000) reported similar results after the same period of fattening with Awassi lambs, where increasing the dietary crude protein levels resulted in an increase in average daily gain up to the 16% dietary crude protein level. 25 4.1.2 Feed intake (Table 6, figure 4): Table (6): Average feed intake during the 8 weeks feeding trial (g/day). SBM ration SFM ration Time (week) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. 1 977 976 997 1137 111 ns 2 1160 1083 1111 1217 87 ns 3 1337 1247 1240 1347 102 ns 4 1313 1334 1334 1393 153 ns 5 1477 1427 1500 1389 106 ns 6 1503 1536 1654 1514 112 ns 7 1514 1624 1709 1473 119 ns 8 1730 1786 1950 1640 136 ns ns: not significant (P>0.05). . . 26 800 1050 1300 1550 1800 2050 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks A ve ra ge f ee d in ta ke ( gr am /d ay ) SBM 14% SBM 18% SFM 14% SFM 18% Figure 4. Average feed intake of lambs fed two sources of protein at low and high levels (g/day) as fed basis. The average daily feed intake was1376, 1377, 1437 and 1389 g/day for the 14 and 18% CP SBM and 14, 18% CP SFM, respectively. The highest average feed intake was observed in lambs fed 14% CP SFM ration and the lowest was in lambs fed 18% CP SBM ration. Furthermore, during the first 4 weeks, lambs fed with 18% CP SFM showed the highest feed intake compared to other treatment within the same period. Whilst during the last 4 weeks of the experiment, lambs fed 18% CP SFM have less feed intake and their weight gain was relatively decreased compared to other groups. The differences between means were not statistically significant in both SBM and SFM rations. 27 Results indicated a relatively high intake of SFM ration. This suggests that no palatability problems associated with this ingredient. Similar results of feeding SFM were reported by (Stake et al., 1973) on calves, (Schingoethe et al., 1977) on lactating cows and by (Economides and Koumas, 1999) on fattening lambs. However, our results contrasted other investigations in which the intake of SFM ration was reduced due to palatability problems (Stake et al., 1973). On the other hand, some studies reported that SFM was utilized at a less efficient rate than SBM (Schingoethe et al., 1977; Nishino et al., 1980), which resulted in increased feed consumption of the SFM compared to SBM to compensate for the difference. 28 4.1.3 Average daily gain (Table 7, figure 5 and 6): Table (7): Average weight gain (g/day) for lambs fed SBM and SFM at two crude protein levels. SBM ration SFM ration Time (week) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. 1 217 284 289 330 57 ns 2 389 351 374 333 64 ns 3 411 293 231 201 104 ns 4 284 447 361 373 94 ns 5 359 274 273 281 83 ns 6 386 309 340 270 88 ns 7 306 406 329 226 65 ns 8 261 346 420 269 75 ns ns: not significant (P>0.05). 29 150 250 350 450 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks A ve ra ge d ai ly g ai n (g /d ) SBM 14% SBM 18% Figure 5. Average weight gain (g/day) for lambs fed at SBM (14% and 18% CP). 150 250 350 450 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks A ve ra ge d ai ly g ai n (g /d ) SFM 14% SFM 18% Figure 6. Average weight gain (g/day) for lambs fed at SFM (14% and 18% CP). 30 There was no significant difference between using 14or 18% CP from SBM or SFM on average daily gain (ADG). The mean daily gain was 327, 339, 327 and 285 g. for 14% CP SBM, 18% CP SBM, 14% CP SFM and 18% CP SFM, respectively. Mean ADG was the highest in lambs fed 18% CP SBM ration, while gain was similar when 14% CP SBM and 14% CP SFM fed; the 18% CP SFM ration caused the lowest ADG. The results on body weight change in lambs fed SBM and SFM agreed with other studies that showed no differences in total gain or average daily gain resulted from both sources and protein levels (Stake et al., 1973; Richardson et al., 1981; Finn et al., 1985; Steen, 1989; Economides and Koumas, 1999). While, (Steen, 1989) reported that performance and body weight gain of lambs fed SFM was less compared to SBM fed lambs. 31 4.1.4 Feed conversion (Table 8, figure 7): Table (8): Feed conversion (kg feed/kg gain) in Assaf lambs fed SBM and SFM (14% & 18% CP) during 8 weeks. ns: not significant (P>0.05). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 SBM 14% SBM18% SFM14% SFM18% Fe ed c on ve rs io n Figure 7. Feed conversion (kg feed/kg gain) for lambs fed SBM and SFM (14% & 18% CP) during 8 weeks. SBM ration SFM ration Item 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Feed conversion 5.43 3.30 3.03 4.58 1.22 ns 32 Mean feed conversion (FCR) for lambs was (5.43, 3.30, 3.03 and 4.58 kg feed/kg gain) for 14% CP SBM, 18% CP SBM, 14% CP SFM and 18% CP SFM rations, respectively. Feed conversion was the lowest for lambs fed 14% CP SFM and 18% CP SBM, and the highest for 14% CP SBM However, these differences between all the 4 treatments were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Similarly, lambs fed 18% CP SBM and 14% CP SFM has recoded relatively best feed conversion than lambs fed 14% CP SBM or 18% CP SFM. In the same context, several studies reported similar results of no differences in FCR when SFM was used as a protein source in ruminant's rations (Stake et al., 1973; Richardson et al., 1981). 33 4.2 Carcass characteristics and non-carcass components: 4.2.1 Dressing percentage (Table 9, figure 8): Table (9): Dressing percentage in hot carcass for Assaf lambs fed SBM at two crude protein levels (14% & 18%). SBM ration SFM ration 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Dressing % 50.56 50.42 50.79 51.85 0.55 ns ns: not significant (P>0.05). 49 50 51 52 SBM 14% SBM 18% SFM 14% SFM 18% H ot D re ss in g % Figure 8. Hot dressing percentage of lambs fed SBM and SFM at two crude protein levels (14% & 18%). 34 Dressing percentage for lambs fed SBM or SFM at different CP levels were not significantly difference (P>0.05). But dressing percent of lambs fed 18% CP SFM rations was the highest compared to other treatments, and the dressing percentages for 14%, 18% CP SBM and 14% CP SFM fed lambs were similar. However, these results are in agreement with the results from (Atti et al., 2003), who showed that empty body weight, carcass weight, and dressing percentage were not affected by the increase of crude protein level in the ration. 35 4.2.2 Carcass cuts measurements (Table 10): Table (10): Carcass cuts measurements as (g/kg empty body weight, EBW). SBM ration SFM ration Carcass cuts (g/kg EBW) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Chilling lost 12.29a 16.82a 8.68a 59.78b 5.57 * Leg 141.36a 148.69ab 150.18ab 152.93b 3.11 * Rib 82.51 80.26 77.82 77.80 1.58 ns Shoulder 41.14b 38.80ab 36.49a 38.38ab 1.33 * Lion 48.64 50.22 49.09 52.14 2.40 ns Shank 46.14 43.52 43.49 44.33 1.55 ns Neck 36.25 39.22 38.58 34.99 1.30 ns Breast 37.10 38.50 38.31 40.63 2.79 ns Abdominal fat 28.50 32.75 33.24 34.28 3.77 ns Thickness of sub cut. Fat (mm) 2.00 3.00 3.67 2.00 0.52 ns Rib eye muscle area (cm2) 14.63 14.15 13.95 15.32 1.04 ns Rib eye muscle depth (cm) 6.37 6.1 6.00 6.40 0.30 ns Means in the same line with different alphabets (a, b) are significantly different (P<0.05). ns: not significant (P>0.05). * (P<0.05) 36 There were significant differences (P<0.05) between hot and cold carcass weights. However, lambs fed 18% CP SFM had the highest weight loss during carcass chilling at 3◦C for 24 hr., followed by lambs fed 14% CP SFM ration. Leg and shoulder cuts were significant difference (P<0.05) between treatments. Results showed that there was no significant difference for the other carcass cuts. 37 4.2.3 Edible parts (Table 11): Table (11): Edible parts of carcass for the treatments groups (g/kg EBW). SBM ration SFM ration Organs (g/kg EBW) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Lungs 31.5a 40.2b 34.8ab 36.7ab 2.25 * Heart 13.4 13.8 11.7 13.2 0.67 ns Kidneys 5.9b 5.9b 5.6a 5.7ab 0.07 * Liver 37.8a 37.7a 42.2ab 43.7b 1.63 * Means in the same line with different alphabets (a, b) are significantly different (P<0.05). ns: not significant (P>0.05). * (P< 0.05) Results of the experiment showed that crude protein level of SBM rations had significant effect on lungs weights but had no effects on heart, kidney and liver weights. However, crude protein level of SFM had no effect on all measured edible parts. 38 4.2.4 Non-edible parts (Table 12 and 13): Table (12): Weight of the non-edible parts of carcass for the different treatments (g/kg EBW). Means in the same line with different alphabets (a, b, c, d) are significantly different (P<0.05). ns: not significant (P>0.05). * (P< 0.05) SBM ration SFM ration Non-edible parts (g/kg EBW) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Hide 282.5 299.5 320.1 271.9 19.35 ns Head 130.9d 105.5c 103.8bc 97.3ac 7.1 * Feet 50.6b 48.9ab 49.0ab 47.1a 0.82 * Kidneys fat 8.2 7.8 7.2 6.8 0.84 ns Spleen 4.3b 4.9cd 3.4a 5.1cd 0.18 * Gallbladder 1.5ab 1.8b 1.1a 1.5ab 0.14 * Total gastro intestinal tract 325.1a 327.6a 379.5b 363.7b 17.91 * Trachea 3.9ab 4.7b 3.9a 4.3ab 0.23 * Esophagus 2.9c 2.5ab 2.4a 3.2c 0.09 * Four compartment stomach 171.4ab 151.2a 207.7b 175.9ab 13.87 * 39 Table (13): Weight of dry and wet tissue of digestive tract for the different treatments (g/kg EBW). Means in the same line with different alphabets (a, b) are significantly different (P<0.05). ns: not significant (P>0.05). * (P< 0.05) Results showed that small intestines, large intestines and cecum were not difference (P> 0.05). Reticulum at wet and dry basis, rumen wet tissues, abomasal dry tissues, hide and kidney's fat were not different (P>0.05). Head, feet, spleen and gallbladder were significantly different (P<0.05) between treatments. However, total gastrointestinal tract was significantly different (P<0.05) between SBM treatment and SFM treatment. Four compartment stomach weights were the highest in 14% CP SFM, and significantly from 18% CP SBM. SBM ration SFM ration Digestive tract tissues (g/kg EBW) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Rumen wet tissue 30.9 26.8 31.1 31.7 1.81 ns Rumen dry tissue 3.9a 4.8ab 5.8b 5.1ab 0.55 * Reticulum wet tissue 4.8 5.2 4.6 5.3 0.41 ns Reticulum dry tissue 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.12 ns Omasum wet tissue 4.7b 4.2ab 3.8ab 3.4a 0.32 * Omasum dry tissue 0.9a 1.0ab 1.1b 0.9a 0.06 * Abomasal wet tissue 7.2a 10.3ab 10.8ab 11.4b 0.81 * Abomasal dry tissue 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.9 0.30 ns Small intestine 53.4 62.6 55.6 64.0 3.94 ns Large intestine 41.9 38.1 41.1 39.4 3.71 ns Cecum 14.5 17.9 15.4 18.8 1.54 ns 40 4.3 Economical evaluation: Table (14): Economical evaluation, growth characters and performance of Assaf lambs fed SBM and SFM at two crude protein levels. SBM ration SFM ration 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E No. of lambs 5 5 5 5 Initial weight (kg) 29.22 29.82 29.66 27.47 2.24 ns Final weight (kg) 47.57 48.79 47.98 43.45 3.13 ns Feedlot period (day) 56 56 56 56 Average daily gain (g/head/day) 326.6 338.8 327.2 285.6 35.6 ns Total gain (kg) 18.29 18.97 18.32 15.98 1.99 ns Average gain (kg/week) 2.28 2.37 2.29 1.99 0.25 ns Average feed intake (kg) 77.1 77.1 80.5 77.8 5.5 ns Daily feed intake (g) 1376.4 1376.6 1436.8 1388.6 97.9 ns Feed conversion (kg feed/kg LWG 5.43 3.30 3.03 4.58 1.22 ns Feed cost (NIS/kg) 1.57 1.72 1.33 1.30 Weight gain cost (NIS/kg LBW)* 6.83 7.16 6.01 6.62 0.58 ns ns: not significant (P>0.05). * The cost comes only from feed. 41 4.4 Digestibility (Table 15): Table (15): Effect of dietary protein source and crude protein level on digestibility of DM, CP, EE and OM of the experiment ration. SBM ration SFM ration Digestibility (%) 14% 18% 14% 18% S.E. Dry matter (DM) 81.29 75.58 78.00 73.56 3.12 ns Crude protein (CP) 69.59 69.04 70.12 71.21 4.13 ns Crude fat (EE) 83.37ab 76.26a 76.00a 87.98b 2.90 * Organic matter (OM) 93.80b 88.90a 94.73b 85.25a 1.31 * Means in the same line with different alphabets (a, b) are significantly different (P<0.05). ns: not significant (P>0.05). * (P< 0.05) Dry matter and crude protein digestibility of mixed rations were not different among feeding groups. However, dry matter digestibility for 14% CP SBM was the highest compared to other treatments. Also crude protein digestibility was not different in SBM and SFM rations at 14% and 18% CP levels. The study showed that crude fat digestibility was significantly higher (P<0.05) in 18% CP SFM ration compared to that of 18% CP SBM or 14% CP SFM rations; but relatively similar to SBM 14% ration. Organic matter digestibility was significantly different (P<0.05) in 14% CP SBM and 18% CP SBM; and also between significantly different between 14% CP SFM and 18% CP SFM. 42 Irshaid et al., (2003) reported that the digestibility was the same when SBM was replaced by SFM when fed to ewes and lambs, the control group rations contained SBM while in the other two rations, and SFM replaced SBM at a level of 50% and 100%, respectively. As level of SFM increased in rations, digestibility's of DM tend to decrease. Using SFM as a protein source did not decrease DM digestibility. The data obtained here are in agreement with those of (Luger and Leitgeb, 1993) who reported that diets had no effect on nutrient digestibility in male Simmental cattle. However, this result disagree with (Stake et al., 1973) who found that digestibility of DM for SBM-based diets fed to Holstein calves were significantly higher than SFM-based diets while protein digestibility for the two diets were the same. Also, (Nishino et al., 1986) found that digestibility of DM was significantly lower in weaned calves fed SFM-based ration. Dabiri and Thonney (2004) reported that lambs fed with different levels of CP showed no differences in the aspects of DM and OM digestibility levels but the CP digestibility was higher in 17% CP group than 13% CP group. 43 5. Conclusion and recommendations It could be concluded that SFM could be safely and effectively to replace SBM in the ration of fattening Assaf lambs. Protein of the SFM is equivalent to that of SBM in fattening rations. SFM could be used as a protein supplement for feeding lambs with SBM or instead of SBM according to its availability and price. The use of any of the two sources depends on the selling price. The recommended dietary CP level for fattening Assaf lambs appeared to be 14-16% of the ration DM. This CP level must be maintained even if lamb weight reaches 30 kg. Increasing the quantity of SFM in ration, may cause a decline in weight gain of lambs. 44 6. Appendix Appendix 1: Analysis of variance for the effect between treatments on weight changes, weight gain, feed intake, and feed: gain and cost of Assaf lambs (P< 0.05). Source df Initial BWa Final BWa DFI a WG a FCE a WGC a Treatment 3 5.8 28.3 4120.1 2718.9 6.31 1.1 A 1 3.1 13.2 2880.0 1080.4 0.42 1.1 B 1 4.5 29.6 6552.2 3458.4 1.5 2.3 A*B 1 9.7 42.1 2928.2 3618.0 16.9 0.1 Error 16 25.0 48.9 48018.0 6357.3 7.5 1.6 R2 0.042 0.098 0.016 0.074 0.136 0.116 df = Degree of Freedom BW = Body Weight (kg/head) DFI = Daily Feed Intake (g/d) WG = Weight Gain (g/head/d) FCE = Feed Conversion Efficiency (kg feed/kg live BW) WGC = Weight Gain Cost (NIS/kg) A = Crude Protein Level B = Protein Source A*B = Interaction a =Mean Square Value 45 Appendix 2: Analysis of variance for the effect between treatments on carcass measurements of the Assaf lambs (P< 0.05). Source Treatment A B A*B Error R2 df 3 1 1 1 8 Chilling losta 1702.7 2321.3 1161.1 1625.8 93.3 0.873 Riba 15.3 3.8 38.3 3.7 7.5 0.432 Rib eye deptha 0.117 0.013 0.003 0.333 0.278 0.136 Rib eye areaa 1.148 0.441 0.101 2.901 3.293 0.116 Necka 11.77 0.285 2.717 32.308 5.075 0.465 Breasta 6.47 10.43 8.35 0.63 23.47 0.094 Shouldera 10.95 0.15 19.30 13.39 5.36 0.434 Shanka 4.63 2.38 2.56 8.96 7.25 0.193 Liona 7.29 16.05 4.22 1.59 17.33 0.136 Lega 73.25 76.25 127.8 15.66 29.01 0.486 df = Degree of Freedom A = Crude Protein Level B = Protein Source A*B = Interaction a =Mean Square Value 46 Appendix 3: Analysis of variance for the effect between treatments on the edible carcass parts of Assaf lambs (P< 0.05). Source df Lungsa Livera Hearta Kidneysa Kidneys fata Treatment 3 39.59 28.64 2.53 0.057 1.139 A 1 83.68 1.34 2.60 0.008 0.513 B 1 0.047 82.74 4.07 0.139 2.901 A*B 1 35.05 1.86 0.93 0.025 0.003 Error 8 15.23 8.02 1.36 0.016 2.148 R2 0.494 0.572 0.411 0.571 0.166 df = Degree of Freedom A = Crude Protein Level B = Protein Source A*B = Interaction a =Mean Square Value 47 Appendix 4: Analysis of variance for the effect between treatments on the non-edible parts of carcass of Assaf lambs (P< 0.05). Source df Legsa Spleena Hidea TGTa Bladdera Rumen a Treatment 3 6.42 1.711 1329.29 2176.8 0.217 1664 A 1 10.47 3.887 729.3 133.66 0.285 2027 B 1 8.78 0.364 74.55 6145.8 0.350 2805 A*B 1 0.027 0.880 3184.0 251.0 0.015 101 Error 8 2.02 0.100 1124.2 962.3 0.061 577 R2 0.543 0.865 0.307 0.459 0.572 0.51 df = Degree of Freedom TGT = Total Gastrointestinal Tract A = Crude Protein Level B = Protein Source A*B = Interaction a =Mean Square Value 48 Appendix 5: Analysis of variance for the effect between treatments on digestibility in Assaf lambs (P< 0.05). Source df DMa OMa Proteina Fata Treatment 3 44.18 78.48 3.42 135.70 A 1 102.76 207.07 0.28 23.79 B 1 28.17 7.39 7.30 18.98 A*B 1 1.60 20.97 2.69 364.33 Error 8 39.07 6.94 68.47 33.66 R2 0.220 0.739 0.012 0.502 df = Degree of Freedom DM = Dry Matter OM = Organic Matter A = Crude Protein Level B = Protein Source A*B = Interaction a =Mean Square Value 49 Appendix 6: Plastic grid procedures for quick measurement of lion eye area. 50 7. References 1. Abo Omar, J., (1998). Feed industry in Palestine. Palestine Research Centre. Nablus, the Palestinian National Authority. Report No.18.22–27. 2. Andrews, P.R. and E.R. Qrskov, (1970). The nutrition of the early weaned lamb, I. The influence of protein concentration and feeding level on rate of gain in body weight. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.), 75: 11-18. 3. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (A.O.A.C.). (1999). Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Ed. Washington. USA. 4. Atti, N., Rouissi, H., Mahouachi, M., (2003). The effect of dietary crude protein level on growth, carcass and meat composition of male goat kids in Tunisia. Small Ruminant Research 54 (2004) 89-97. 5. Chang, J. H. P., D. K. Lunt, and S. B. Smith. (1992). Fatty acid composition and fatty acid elongase and stearoyl-CoA desaturase activities in tissues of steers fed high oleate sunflower seed. J. Nutr. 122:2074–2080. 6. Dabiri, N. and M.L. Thonney, (2004). Source and level of supplemental protein for growing lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 82: 3237- 3244. 51 7. Economides, S., Koumas, A., (1999). Replacement of soybean meal with peanut meal, sunflower meal, narbon vetch meal or urea in concentrate diets of early-weaned lambs. Agriculture Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Nicosia, Cyprus. 8. Erickson, O.D., Hankel, M., Light, R.M., Limesand, W., Faller, T., (1980). SFM vs. SBOM for feeder lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 51 (Suppl. 1), 96–97. 9. Eweedah, N., Varhegyi, J., Gundel, J., Rozsa, L., (1996). A note on the use of some oilseeds in compound feeds for lamb: digestibility, rumen fermentation, nutritive value and degradability. Nutr. Abstr. Rev., Ser. B 68, 216. 10. Finn, A.M., Clark, A.K., Drackly, J.K., Schinogoethe, D.J., Sahlu,T., (1985). Whole rolled seeds with or without additional limestone in lactating dairy cattle rations. J. Dairy Sci. 68, 903– 913. 11. Green, S., Kiener, T., (1989). Digestibilities of nitrogen and amino acids in soybean, sunflower, meat and rapeseed meals measured with pigs and poultry. Anim. Prod. 48, 157–179. 12. Haddad, S.G., (2005). Effect of dietary forage: concentrate ratio on growth performance and carcass characteristics of growing Baladi kids. Small Rumin. Res. 57, 43–49. 52 13. Haddad, S.G., Husein, M.Q., (2004). Effect of dietary energy density on growth performance and slaughtering characteristics of fattening Awassi lambs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 87, 171–177. 14. Haddad, S.G., Nasr, R.E., Muwalla, M.M., (2000). Optimum dietary crude protein level for finishing Awassi lambs. Small Ruminant Research 39 (2001) 41-46. 15. Haddad, S.G., R.E. Nasr and M.M. Muwalla, (2001). Optimum dietary crude protein level for finishing Awassi lambs. Small Rumin. Res., 39: 41-46. 16. Hart, S.P. and H.A. Glimp, (1991). Effect of diet composition and feed intake level on diet digestibility and ruminal metabolism in growing lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 69: 1636-1644. 17. Hesley, J. (Ed). (1994). Sunflower meal use in livestock rations. National Sunflower Association, Bismarck, ND. 18. Irshaid, R.H., Harb, M.Y., and Titi, H.H. (2003). Replacing soybean meal with sunflower seed meal in the ration of Awassi ewes and lambs. Small Ruminant Research 50 (2003) 109–116. 53 19. Kaya, I. and S. Yalcin, (2000). The effects of rations containing different amounts of common vetch seed on growth performance, digestibility and some blood and rumen metabolites in male lambs. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 24: 307-315. 20. Lough, D. S., M. B. Solomon, T. S. Rumsey, T. H. Elsasser, L. L. Slyter, S. Kahl, and G. P. Lynch. (1992). Effects of dietary canola seed and soy lecithin in high-forage diets on cholesterol content and fatty acid composition of carcass tissues of growing ram lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1153–1158. 21. Luger, K.R., Leitgeb, L., (1993). Influence of SFM in diets for Simmental bulls on growing and slaughtering performance. Bodenkultur 44 (1), 79–87. 22. Milton, C. T., R. T. Brandt Jr., E. C. Titgemeyer, and G. L. Kuhl. (1997). Effect of degradable and escape protein and roughage type on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing yearling steers. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2834-2840 23. Ministry of Agriculture. (2000). Agricultural Legislations in Palestine. 24. National Academy of Sciences. (1971). Atlas of nutritional data on United States and Canadian Feeds. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 54 25. Nishino, S., Isogai, K., Kimata, S., (1986). SFM as a replacement for SBOM in calf starter rations. J. College Dairying 11, 381– 390. 26. Nishino, S., Kondo, S., Hayashi, K., (1980). Feeding value of SFM as a replacement for SBOM in lactating cows. J. College Dairying 8, 275. 27. NRC. (1985). Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. 6th Edn. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington. 28. NRC. (1996). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Revised Edition. National Acadamey of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 29. Owens, F.N., Secrist, D.S., Hill, W.J., Gill, D.R., (1998). Acidosis in cattle: a review. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 275–286. 30. Purroy, A., H. Echaide, F. Munoz, J.A.A. Arana, (1993). The effect of protein level and souece of legume seeds on the growth and fattening of lambs. Livest. Prod. Sci., 34(2): 93-100. 31. Rao, K.C., Reddy, J.T., Raghavan, V.G., (1995). Effect of replacing groundnut cake protein by sunflower cake in complete rations for sheep. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 12, 97. 55 32. Richardson, R.C., Beville, N.R., Ratcliff, K.R., Albin, C.R., (1981). SFM as a protein supplement for growing ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 53, 557. 33. Richardson, R.C., Beville, N.R., Ratcliff, K.R., Albin, C.R., (1981). Sunflower meal as a protein supplement for growing ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 53 (3), 557–563. 34. Rizzi, L., Simioli, M., Sardi, L., & Monetti, P. G. (2002). Carcass quality, meat chemical and fatty acid composition of lambs fed diets containing extruded soybeans and sunflower seeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 97(1–2), 103–114. 35. Rule, D. C., and D. C. Beitz. (1986). Fatty acids of adipose tissue, plasma, muscle and duodenal ingesta of steers fed extruded soybeans. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 63:1429–1436. 36. Santos-Silva, J., Bessa, R.J.B., Mendes I.A. (2002). The effect of supplementation with expanded sunflower seed on carcass and meat quality of lambs raised on pasture. Meat Science 65, 1301– 1308. 37. Schingoethe, J.D., Brouk, M.J., Lightfield, K.D., Baer, J.R., (1996). Lactational responses of dairy cows fed unsaturated fat from extruded soybeans or sunflower seeds. J. Dairy Sci. 79, 1244–1249. 56 38. Schingoethe, J.D., Rook, A.J., Ludens, F., (1977). Evaluation of SFM as a protein supplement for lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 60, 591–595. 39. Scott, G.E., (1988). Nutrition in Sheep Production Handbook. Sheep Industry; Rev/Rngbnd Edn., pp: 5-6. ISBN-10: 9999918786. 40. Snowder, G.D., Van Vleck, L.D., (2003). Estimate the genetic parameters and selection strategies to improve the economic efficiency of postweaning growth in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 81, 2704–2713. 41. Stake, E.P., Owens, J.M., Schingoethe, J.D., (1973). Rapeseed, sunflower, and soybean meal supplementation of calf rations. J. Dairy Sci. 56 (6), 783–788. 42. Statsoft STATISTICA, (1995). Release 5, user’s manual. Statsoft Tulsa OK. 43. Steen, W.J.R., (1989). A comparison of soybean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Anim. Prod. 48, 81–89. 44. Villamide, J.M., San Juan, D.L., (1998). Effect of chemical composition of sunflower seed meal on its true metabolizable energy and amino acid digestibility. Poult. Sci. 77, 1884–1892. 57 45. Wilkins R.J., Jones R., (2000) Alternative home-grown protein sources for ruminants in the United Kingdom. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 85, 23–32. 46. Zhang, Y., Parsons, M.C., (1994). Effects of over processing on the nutritional quality of SFM. Poult. Sci. 73, 436–442. اح الوطنيةـعة النجـجام اـات العليـة الدراسـكلي من البروتين على أداء وصفات ين مختلفدرين ومصينمقارنة بين مستوي ذبائح خراف العساف دادـإع رـنص إبراهيـم لـر خليـعم رافــإش رـو عمـال أبـجم. د.أ الحيواني بكلية الدراسات لمتطلبات درجة الماجستير في اإلنتاج ًهذه األطروحة استكماال قدمت .العليا في جامعة النجاح الوطنية في نابلس، فلسطين 2010 ب من البروتين على أداء وصفات ذبائح خراف العسافين مختلفدرين ومصينمقارنة بين مستوي دادـإع رـنصم ـ إبراهيلـر خليـعم رافــإش رـو عمـال أبـجم. د.أ الملخص تأثير دراسةبهدف) كغم29.04( عساف بمتوسط وزن اوف خر20هذه التجربة على أجريت در كمصSBM الصويا فولكسبة كمصدر بديل عن استخدام SFM عباد الشمس كسبةاستخدام % 14وهما البروتين ين من دراسة تأثير مستويإلى، إضافة عليقة التسمين تركيب فيبروتين الخراف عشوائيا إلى أربع متقس . على معدل الكسب اليومي وصفات الذبيحة %18و عليقة من األولى و الثانية شملت المجموعة فردة التغذية، حيثن خراف م5مجموعات بواقع على التوالي، وشملت % 18و% 14وبمستوى فول الصويا كمصدر أساسي للبروتينكسبة وى عباد الشمس كمصدر أساسي للبروتين وبمستكسبةبعة عليقة من االمجموعة الثالثة والر . بعد الفترة التحضيريةايوم 56 البحث استغرق.على التوالي% 18و 14% ، كذلك سجل التغير في الخراف اليومي من العلف للمجموعات األربع سجل يوميااستهالك من المادة األربع لكل حساب معامل الهضم األعالفإلى، باإلضافة أسبوعياالوزن للخراف خراف 3 تاختير وفي نهاية التجربة ،األثيريوتين والمستخلص الجافة، المادة العضوية، البر .من كل معاملة وأرسلت للذبح من أجل قياس صفات الذبيحةعشوائيا كسبة باستبدال لم يتأثر هالتناول الطوعي للعليقمعدل بأن ، األربعنتائج البحث للمجموعاتدلت نت كما بيتويي البروتين في العليقةوال بمس بروتينيمصدرك عباد الشمسبكسبهفول الصويا كسبة فول %18، %14 لكل من يوم/رأس/ غم1389 و 1437، 1377، 1376 :النتائج التالية معدل الزيادة في الوزن نفس سجلو. على التواليكسبة عباد الشمس،% 18، %14 ،الصويا يوم /رأس/ غم285 و 327، 339، 327األربع للمجموعاتالمسار حيث كانت الزيادة اليومية ت إال . على التواليكسبة عباد الشمس،% 18، %14 ، كسبة فول الصويا%18، %14لكل من ت نتائج التناول الطوعي دل ،)P>0.05(أن الفروقات بين المجموعات لم تكن معنوية على و 3.0، 3.3، 5.4: كانت) FCR( اليومية في الوزن بأن كفاءة التحويل الغذائي للغذاء والزيادة كسبة % 18، %14 ، كسبة فول الصويا 14% ،18% ل)كغم وزن حي/كغم علف ( 4.5% المجموعات، كسبة بين ) P>0.05 (ةق معنويوعدم وجود فر مع ، على التواليعباد الشمس، .بروتين سجلت أفضل نسبة تحويل غذائي % 14عباد الشمس تصافي بين الوزن الحي ووزن المأكولة ونسبة الوأوزان قطع اللحمة صفات الذبيحةلم تسجل باستثناء الوزن المبرد للذبيحة حيث سجل ،)P>0.05( فروقات معنوية ة أي قبل التبريدالذبيحة اًوزن الفخذ فرقسجل ، جموعات وباقي الم كسبة عباد الشمس%18 المجموعة بين اً معنوياًفرق مقارنة مع عباد الشمس كسبة%18 و كسبة فول الصويا%14بين المعاملة ) P<0.05 (اًمعنوي % 14بين مستوى البروتين ) P<0.05 (اً معنوياًوزن الكتف فرقسجل ، كذلك جموعاتباقي الم بين )P<0.05( أشارت التحاليل اإلحصائية بوجود فروقات معنويةو .بين المعاملتين ات الجهاز وأشارت نتائج قياس).الكبد والكليتان والرئتان(لألعضاء الحمراء األربعالمجموعات لغالبية أجزاء الكرش بين المجموعات األربع) P<0.05( الهضمي عن وجود فروقات معنوية الخام الجافة والبروتينمادةال أشارت نتائج تجربة هضميةكما . هاز الهضميوالغدد الملحقة بالج ، 81.3 كانت للمادة الجافة ، إذ األربعجموعاتبين الم) P>0.05 ( معنوياًعدم وجود فرقعن كسبة عباد % 18، %14 ، كسبة فول الصويا%18، %14لكل من 73.5 و 78.0، 75.6 %18، %14 لكل من71.2 و 70.1، 69.0، 69.6 كذلك البروتين كان ، على التواليالشمس، اً معنوياً بينما كان هناك فرق. على التواليكسبة عباد الشمس،% 18، %14 ،كسبة فول الصويا )P<0.05 ( حيث سجلت أعلى هضمية للدهن في المعاملة الدهن والمادة العضوية مهضلنسبة %14و فول الصويا لكسبه %18 من وتساوت هضمية كل87.9 كسبة عباد الشمس 18% فكانت هضمية المادة العضويةأماعلى التوالي، ، 76.0 و 76.2 عباد الشمس فكانتلكسبه ، على التوالي عباد الشمس،لكسبه %14 و فول الصويالكسبه %14 للمعاملتين 94.7 و 93.8 على ، كسبة عباد الشمس%18 و كسبة فول الصويا%18للمعاملتين 88.9، 85.2 كانت ث 6.62 و 6.01، 7.16، 6.83 كانت للخرافحياللكغم ا أن تكلفة البحثمن نتائج تبين . التوالي على الشمس،كسبة عباد % 18، %14 ، كسبة فول الصويا%18، %14لكل من شيكال، .التوالي