| Literature DB >> 28056054 |
Tianwei Xu1,2,3, Shixiao Xu1,3, Linyong Hu1,3, Na Zhao1,3, Zhe Liu1,2, Li Ma1,2,3, Hongjin Liu1,2,3, Xinquan Zhao1,3.
Abstract
Pastoralists on the Tibetan alpine rangeland suffered great economic loss in cold season, due to serious live-weight loss of domestic livestock under traditional grazing management. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of dietary types (crude protein levels) on feed intakes, growth performance and economic returns of local Tibetan sheep and yaks during cold season. Twenty-four yearling Tibetan sheep (25.29±3.95 kg LW) and twenty two-year-old yaks (100.62±4.55 kg LW) with familiar body conditions were randomly assigned to four groups, fed oats hay (OH), oats silage (OS), total mixed ration (TMR) and traditionally grazed on the local cool-season pasture (TG), respectively, over a 135-day experiment. Daily dry matter intake was determined; all animals were weighed at the beginning and every 15 days of the 135-day experiment. Then, the total live-weight gain, average daily live-weight gain, gain rate, feed efficiency and net economic benefit were calculated. Results indicated that feed and nutrient intakes (DMI, DMI/kg LW, DMI/kg LW0.75 and CPI) of TMR, OH and OS were higher than TG (P < 0.05). Grazing animals suffered serious live-weight loss, while TMR, OS and OH significantly (P < 0.05) improved total live-weight gain and gain rate in both Tibetan sheep and yaks during the entire experiment. TMR worked better in animal performance and feed efficiency, obtained the highest breeding profit in both Tibetan sheep and yaks among four treatments (P < 0.05). When expressed on net economic benefit, TMR shared the highest net economic benefit in Tibetan sheep, OH shared the highest net economic benefit in yaks, but, no significant difference of net economic benefit in yaks fed TMR and OH diets was determined (P > 0.05). Results indicated that TMR was a reasonable diet in promoting feed intakes, animal performance, feed efficiency and economic returns in domestic livestock, which should be considered by local herdsmen to increase their breeding profit during cold season.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28056054 PMCID: PMC5215856 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Ingredient and nutrient composition of experiment diets during the experiment.
| Items | Treatments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMR | Oats hay | Oats silage | Natural herbage | |
| Oats hay | 39.7 | |||
| Concentrate feeds | 33.1 | |||
| Pre-mix | 0.7 | |||
| Salt | 0.4 | |||
| Water | 26.1 | |||
| DM, g/kg | 684 | 881 | 571 | 921 |
| CP, g/kg | 103.1 | 56.9 | 84.0 | 51.0 |
| EE, g/kg | 27.4 | 21.2 | 23.1 | 19.0 |
| NDF, g/kg | 331.9 | 546.2 | 501.6 | 586.4 |
| ADF, g/kg | 139.6 | 317.3 | 285.2 | 368.3 |
DM is dry matter, CP is crude protein, EE is ether extract, NDF is neutral detergent fiber and ADF is acid detergent fiber.
a Manufactured by Huanghexing Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Development Co., Ltd. contained maize, wheat, highland barley, bran and CaHPO4·2H2O et al. Nutritional level (%): DM≥86%, CP≥14%, CF≤8.8%, Salt = 0.4%, Ca = 0.8% and P = 0.6%.
b Manufactured by Hehuangqingmu Animal Feeding S&T Development Co., Ltd., contained Forage vitamin, trace element, amino acid, Ca, P, Mg and NSP enzyme.
Effect of dietary types on feed and nutrient intakes in Tibetan sheep and yaks (mean±S.E.).
| Items | TMR | OH | OS | TG | SEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMI (kg/d) | 1.41±0.03a | 1.31±0.03b | 1.22±0.03c | 0.69±0.02d | 0.02 | < 0.001 |
| DMI/kg LW (g/kg) | 43.53±1.13ab | 40.87±0.91b | 43.75±1.36a | 28.00c | 0.67 | < 0.001 |
| DMI/kg LW0.75 (g/kg) | 103.37±2.14a | 97.10±2.13b | 100.29±2.71ab | 62.18±0.44c | 1.55 | < 0.001 |
| CPI (g/d) | 147.84±3.17a | 74.47±1.89c | 102.78±2.32b | 35.18±0.93d | 3.09 | < 0.001 |
| NDFI (g/d) | 467.39±10.03c | 714.88±18.11a | 611.81±13.80b | 404.52±10.70d | 10.86 | 0.001 |
| DMI (kg/d) | 5.16±0.11a | 3.77±0.09b | 3.01±0.05c | 2.63±0.05d | 0.08 | < 0.001 |
| DMI/kg LW (g/kg) | 32.83±0.78a | 34.29±0.79a | 29.03±0.59b | 28.00b | 0.36 | < 0.001 |
| DMI/kg LW0.75 (g/kg) | 115.84±2.27a | 110.89±2.40a | 92.61±1.72b | 86.99±0.46c | 1.27 | < 0.001 |
| CPI (g/d) | 532.51±10.85a | 215.06±5.34b | 253.21±3.89c | 134.13±2.78d | 11.10 | < 0.001 |
| NDFI (g/d) | 1714.25±34.93b | 2064.47±50.28a | 1512.01±23.26c | 1542.25±30.06c | 23.87 | < 0.001 |
Values that does not share the same letters are significantly (P < 0.05) different from each other.
Fig 1Changes of ADG-15ds in Tibetan sheep and yaks fed different diets during the experiment (mean±S.E.).
Fig 2Live-weight variations of Tibetan sheep and yaks fed different diets during the experiment (mean±S.E.).
Live-weight changes and feed efficiency in Tibetan sheep and yaks fed different diets during the experiment (mean±S.E.).
| Items | TMR | OH | OS | TG | SEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial LW (kg) | 23.91±0.96ab | 26.00±1.32ab | 23.08±1.23b | 28.17±2.16a | 0.81 | 0.099 |
| Final LW (kg) | 49.25±1.29a | 38.08±1.40b | 37.41±2.27b | 22.50±2.10c | 2.16 | < 0.001 |
| Total LW gain (kg/sheep) | 25.33±1.35a | 12.08±1.40b | 14.33±1.20b | –5.66±0.51c | 2.38 | < 0.001 |
| ADG (g/sheep/d) | 187.65±10.06a | 89.51±10.41b | 106.17±8.90b | –41.98±3.79c | 17.64 | < 0.001 |
| Gain rate (%) | 107.45±9.96a | 47.94±7.32b | 61.92±3.54b | –20.54±2.25c | 9.99 | < 0.001 |
| Total DM consume (kg) | 190.11 | 176.69 | 164.70 | 98.83 | ||
| Feed efficiency | 7.65±0.38b | 15.89±2.24a | 11.92±1.04ab | –18.18±1.67c | 2.86 | < 0.001 |
| Initial LW (kg) | 123.70±8.45a | 86.90±6.50b | 92.20±6.44b | 99.70±6.35b | 4.55 | 0.009 |
| Final LW (kg) | 206.10±10.64a | 140.22±10.61b | 122.90±5.99b | 87.30±5.95c | 10.65 | < 0.001 |
| Total LW gain (kg/yak) | 82.40±3.05a | 53.32±4.66b | 30.70±1.91c | –12.40±1.13d | 8.06 | < 0.001 |
| ADG (g/yak/d) | 610.37±22.60a | 394.96±34.57b | 227.41±14.18c | –91.85±8.39d | 59.73 | < 0.001 |
| Gain rate (%) | 67.34±3.42a | 61.40±3.29 a | 34.16±3.59 b | –12.52±1.11c | 0.07 | < 0.001 |
| Total DM consume (kg) | 696.6 | 510.3 | 406.3 | 329.4 | ||
| Feed efficiency | 8.50±0.32b | 9.90±0.95ab | 13.45±0.86a | –27.57±2.77c | 3.88 | < 0.001 |
Values that does not share the same letters are significantly (P < 0.05) different from each other.
Fig 3Changes of feed efficiency in Tibetan sheep and yaks fed different diets during the experiment (mean±S.E.).
Economic returns in Tibetan sheep and yaks fed different diets during the experiment.
| Items | TMR | OH | OS | TG | SEM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feed price(¥/kg DM) | 1.72 | 1.37 | 1.42 | — | ||
| Feed consume (kg DM) | 190.11 | 176.69 | 164.70 | 98.83 | ||
| Total feed cost(¥) | 326.99 | 242.07 | 233.87 | — | ||
| Benefit of LW gain(¥) | 532.00±28.52a | 253.75±29.5b | 301.00±25.23b | –119.00±10.73c | 50.02 | < 0.001 |
| Breeding profit(¥/sheep) | 205.01±28.52a | 11.68±29.50b | 136.30±25.23a | –119.00±10.73c | 28.24 | < 0.001 |
| Profit over TG (¥/sheep) | 324.01±36.47a | 130.68±36.54b | 255.30±24.69a | — | 26.41 | 0.003 |
| Net economic benefit | 0.63±0.09a | 0.05±0.12b | 0.58±0.11a | — | 0.086 | 0.003 |
| Feed consume (kg DM) | 696.60 | 510.30 | 406.30 | 329.41 | ||
| Total feed cost(¥) | 1198.15 | 699.11 | 576.95 | — | ||
| Benefit of LW gain(¥) | 2214.91±82.02a | 1433.24±125.47b | 825.21±51.46c | –333.31±30.47 d | 216.7 | < 0.001 |
| Breeding profit (¥/yak) | 1016.71±82.02a | 734.14±125.47 b | 248.32±51.46c | –333.31±30.47d | 123.3 | < 0.001 |
| Profit over TG (¥/yak) | 1349.71±82.02a | 1067.14±125.47b | 581.32±51.46c | — | 159.7 | < 0.001 |
| Net economic benefit | 0.85±0.07a | 1.04±0.18a | 0.43±0.09b | — | 0.095 | 0.011 |
Values that does not share the same letters are significantly (P < 0.05) different from each other.