Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of supplemental exogenous enzymes and application method on the productive performance and nutrient intake of growing Pelibuey male lambs fed a diet containing buffel grass

From: Effects of exogenous enzymes and application method on nutrient intake, digestibility and growth performance of Pelibuey lambs

 

Control

Application methoda

SEM

Contrastb (P values):

Oral-E

TMR-E

C1

C2

N

7

7

7

   

Initial BW (kg)

15.24

15.10

16.71

0.66

0.4264

0.1039

Final BW (kg)

23.62

24.32

24.62

0.26

0.0144

0.4415

Total gain (kg)

7.93

8.63

8.93

0.26

0.0144

0.4415

ADGc (g/d)

193

210

218

6.3

0.0144

0.4415

Nutrient intake, g/d

 DM

1029

1120

1084

44.4

0.1041

0.4770

 OM

928

963

976

22.4

0.3999

0.8169

 CP

130

135

137

3.13

0.3989

0.8173

 NDF

447

464

470

10.79

0.4033

0.8163

 ADF

184

191

194

4.45

0.4005

0.8226

 Feed conversion efficiencyd

184.8x

182.8x

208.0y

6.5

0.1969

0.0166

 Feed conversion ratiod

5.46x

5.51x

4.86y

0.18

0.2398

0.0283

  1. aBasal diet supplemented with 0 (Control, no enzyme) or with 1 ml of supplemental exogenous enzyme per kg DM of diet applied orally to each lamb 1 h before morning feeding (Oral-E) or sprayed on the diet (TMR-E) 24 h before morning feeding
  2. bC1, Control versus Oral-E and TMR-E; C2, Oral-E versus TMR-E
  3. cAverage daily gain calculated as (final BW–initial BW)/duration of study
  4. dFeed conversation efficiency = ADG/DM intake (g body weight gain/kg DM); Feed conversion ratio = DM intake/ADG (kg DM/kg body weight gain)
  5. x,yMeans within the same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05)