Feeding efficiency of lambs finished in feedlot and fed alfalfa hay and/or black oat grains

Lopes, J.F.; Mello, R.O.; Venturini, R.S.; Brutti, D.D.; Moro, A.B.; Macari, S.; Coelho, L.C.; Fonseca, I.; Toledo, F.J.M.; Pires, C.C.

doi:10.1590/1678-4162-13336

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Original Article - Zootechnics • Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec. 77 (3) • May-Jun 2025 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-13336 linkcopy

Feeding efficiency of lambs finished in feedlot and fed alfalfa hay and/or black oat grains

[Eficiência alimentar de cordeiros terminados em confinamento e alimentados com feno de alfafa e/ou grãos de aveia preta]

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The aim of this research was to evaluate the feed efficiency of lambs fed diets composed of alfalfa hay and/or black oat grains in a feedlot. 30 weaned lambs were distributed in a 3x2 factorial scheme (three diets and two sexes). The experimental diets were roughage only (ROU), roughage (50%) and concentrate (50%) (RCO) and concentrate only (CON). The slaughter criterion used was body condition score. There was no interaction between diet and sex. The lambs in the ROU treatment consumed more dry matter (DM) and consequently more nutrients. The RCO lambs consumed intermediate values, and the CON animals consumed less DM and nutrients. Males consumed more DM. Lambs from the ROU treatment had a higher final body weight compared to lambs from the RCO treatment. The average daily gain was higher in the RCO lambs compared to the ROU lambs. The lambs' feed efficiency was best in the CON treatment, followed by the RCO and the ROU treatment lambs had the worst feed efficiency. Females have better feed efficiency when evaluated by bionutritional efficiency.

Keywords:
alfalfa hay; black oat grains; feedlot; Ovis aries; performance

Variable	Alfalfa hay	Oat grain	Soybean meal	Calcitic limestone	Sodium bicarbonate
Dry matter	85.23	86.28	86.79	100	100
Organic matter	92.57	96.66	94.94	-	-
Crude protein	25.04	13.00	52.70	-	-
Neutral detergent fiber	40.31	28.79	12.40	-	-
Acid detergent fiber	30.60	14.80	10.02	-	-
Total digestible nutrients	58.47	78.65	73.00	-	-
Ether extract	3.63	4.68	2.20	-	-
LE ⁽²⁾	1.31	1.80	1.66	-	-
DIVMS	86.79	79.31	98.11	-	-
Calcium ⁽³⁾	1.29	0.07	0.34	37.33	-
Phosphorus ⁽³⁾	0.23	0.35	0.58	0.03	-

Ingredients	Diets
Ingredients	ROU	RCO	CON
	Proportion of ingredients (% DM)
Alfalfa hay	100.00	48.59	0.00
Oat grain	0.00	51.41	81.32
Soybean meal	0.00	0.00	15.65
Calcitic limestone	0.00	0.00	2.03
Sodium bicarbonate	0.00	0.00	1.00
Chemical composition (%DM)
DM	85.23	85.77	86.73
OM	92.57	94.69	93.46
CP	25.04	18.81	18.81
NDF	40.31	34.35	25.37
ADF	30.6	22.43	13.60
TDN	58.47	68.91	75.38
EE	3.63	4.17	4.15
LE ⁽¹⁾	1.31	1.57	1.73
DIVMS	86.79	82.92	79.84
Ca⁽²⁾	1.29	0.66	0.87
P⁽²⁾	0.23	0.29	0.38

	Diet (D)			Sex (S)		Effect^‡
	ROU	RCO	CON	Male	Female	Mean	D	S	DxS	CV¹
kg
DM	1.40^a	1.11^b	0.80^c	1.19^A	1.01^B	1.10	<0.0001	0.0003	0.70	9.7
TDN	0.81^a	0.77^b	0.64^c	0.80^A	0.68^B	0.74	<0.0001	0.0002	0.28	9.5
CP	0.35^a	0.20^b	0.12^c	0.25^A	0.20^B	0.23	<0.0001	0.0019	0.45	14.3
OM	1.19^a	0.98^b	0.74^c	1.04^A	0.90^B	0.97	<0.0001	0.0010	0.67	10.3
NDF	0.52^a	0.36^b	0.19^c	0.38^A	0.33^B	0.36	<0.0001	0.0263	0.80	15.4
ADF	0.33^a	0.21^b	0.08^c	0.23^A	0.18^B	0.20	<0.0001	0.0020	0.05	16.4
%pv
DM	4.17^a	3.63^b	2.60^c	3.62^A	3.30^B	3.46	<0.0001	0.0024	0.32	7.0
TDN	2.44^a	2.44^a	2.06^b	2.45^A	2.23^B	2.34	<0.0001	0.0056	0.10	7.8
CP	1.07^a	0.68^b	0.39^c	0.76^A	0.70^B	0.71	<0.0001	0.0203	0.28	13.8
OM	3.54^a	3.23^b	2.38^c	3.17^A	2.92^B	3.05	<0.0001	0.0128	0.33	7.8
NDF	1.55^a	1.18^b	0.64^c	1.17	1.18	1.12	<0.0001	0.1351	0.59	13.8
ADF	1.02^a	0.70^b	0.28^c	0.71^A	0.63^B	0.65	<0.0001	0.0281	0.52	13.1
g/kg pv^0.75
DM	88.81^a	73.70^b	5.80^c	75.98^A	68.42^B	72.40	<0.0001	0.0014	0.07	7.1
TDN	58.01^a	58.5^a	48.42^b	58.40^A	51.59^B	55.00	<0.0001	0.0025	0.24	9.5
CP	26.94^a	17.14^b	9.86^c	18.57	17.46	18.00	<0.0001	0.4568	0.08	14.3
OM	86.03^a	76.10^b	53.85^c	75.48^A	75.48^A	72.00	<0.0001	0.0064	0.72	8.4
NDF	38.00^a	26.80^b	15.18^c	28.17	25.15	26.60	<0.0001	0.1699	0.43	20.8
ADF	25.99^a	19.01^b	7.98^c	19.31	16.01	17.68	<0.0001	0.0503	0.82	23.6

	Diet (D)			Sex (S)		Effect^‡
	ROU	RCO	CON	Male	Female	Mean	D	S	DxS	CV¹
IW	23.82	23.02	24.51	24.48	23.09	23.7	0.402	0.129	0.56	10.1
SW	39.74^a	35.31^b	37.17^a,b	39.50^A	35.31^B	37.5	0.002	0.0002	0.87	6.5
BCS	2.92	3.03	3.01	2.99	2.99	2.99	0.135	0.895	0.54	4.1
ADG	0.170^b	0.215^a	0.185^a,b	0.222^A	0.159^B	0.18	0.011	<0.0001	0.41	15.9
DA	93.59^a	56.45^b	66.52^b	72.66	71.70	72.55	<0.0001	0.863	0.47	18.9
FC	8.16^a	5.29^b	4.28^c	5.49^B	6.34^A	5.82	<0.0001	0.011	0.96	13.1
FE	0.12^c	0.19^b	0.23^a	0.20^A	0.17^B	0.18	<0.0001	0.003	0.45	14.5
BNE	12.46^a	8.65^b	5.67^c	9.35^A	8.50^B	8.93	<0.0001	0.031	0.65	10.7

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Escola de Veterinária Caixa Postal 567, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte MG - Brazil, Tel.: (55 31) 3409-2041, Tel.: (55 31) 3409-2042 - Belo Horizonte - MG - Brazil
E-mail: abmvz.artigo@gmail.com

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] LE= liquid energy; DIVMS: In Vitro Digestibility of Dry Matter

[TFN2] ^*
²⁾Value calculated according to Moe and Tyrrel (1976) - LE= (0.0245 x %TDN) - 0.12;

[TFN3] ^*
³⁾ Tabulated value