Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza?
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of L. leucocephalasupplementation on feed intake, water balance and water economy in highlandsheep fed teff straw as basal diet. Sixteen young male sheep of uniform weightwere assigned in a completely randomized design to the following feedingt...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/34134 |
| _version_ | 1855514409394241536 |
|---|---|
| author | Ayalew, W. Jobre, Y. |
| author_browse | Ayalew, W. Jobre, Y. |
| author_facet | Ayalew, W. Jobre, Y. |
| author_sort | Ayalew, W. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of L. leucocephalasupplementation on feed intake, water balance and water economy in highlandsheep fed teff straw as basal diet. Sixteen young male sheep of uniform weightwere assigned in a completely randomized design to the following feedingtreatments: ad libitum teff straw (T1, control), supplemented with 60 (T2), 120 (T3)or 180 (T4) g head-1day-1 air dried leaves of L. leucocephala. Supplementationincreased straw (p<0.01) and total feed (p<0.001) intakes, total water turnover aswell as all avenues of water gains and losses (p<0.001). Compared with the meandaily DMI of 338 g and 633 ml total water turnover rate of sheep in T1, sheep in T4consumed 49% more DM and turned over 54% more water. Drinking water wasthe major avenue of water intake (80%; 511 ml in T1 vs 1108 ml in T4), followed bymetabolic water (15%; 91 ml in T1 vs 201 ml in T4) and preformed water (5%; 31ml in T1 vs 65 ml in T4). From the out put side, water loss was highest throughevaporation (55%; 330 ml in T1 vs 767 ml in T4) followed by urine (27%; 166 ml inT1 vs 389 ml in T4) and faecal (18%; 137 ml in T1 vs 218 in T4) water.Supplementation was accompanied by liberal water use and resulted in low watereconomy; the control sheep (T1), drunk 46% of the water intake of sheep in T4 andthereby saved 54% more water or 60 liters of water/100 sheep which could serve119 additional sheep. The results of the study showed the potential of L.leucocephala as supplement to poor quality roughages and the importance ofliberal water supply along with the supplementary feedingThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of L. leucocephalasupplementation on feed intake, water balance and water economy in highlandsheep fed teff straw as basal diet. Sixteen young male sheep of uniform weightwere assigned in a completely randomized design to the following feedingtreatments: ad libitum teff straw (T1, control), supplemented with 60 (T2), 120 (T3)or 180 (T4) g head-1day-1 air dried leaves of L. leucocephala. Supplementationincreased straw (p<0.01) and total feed (p<0.001) intakes, total water turnover aswell as all avenues of water gains and losses (p<0.001). Compared with the meandaily DMI of 338 g and 633 ml total water turnover rate of sheep in T1, sheep in T4consumed 49% more DM and turned over 54% more water. Drinking water wasthe major avenue of water intake (80%; 511 ml in T1 vs 1108 ml in T4), followed bymetabolic water (15%; 91 ml in T1 vs 201 ml in T4) and preformed water (5%; 31ml in T1 vs 65 ml in T4). From the out put side, water loss was highest throughevaporation (55%; 330 ml in T1 vs 767 ml in T4) followed by urine (27%; 166 ml inT1 vs 389 ml in T4) and faecal (18%; 137 ml in T1 vs 218 in T4) water.Supplementation was accompanied by liberal water use and resulted in low watereconomy; the control sheep (T1), drunk 46% of the water intake of sheep in T4 andthereby saved 54% more water or 60 liters of water/100 sheep which could serve119 additional sheep. The results of the study showed the potential of L.leucocephala as supplement to poor quality roughages and the importance ofliberal water supply along with the supplementary feeding |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace34134 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2006 |
| publishDateRange | 2006 |
| publishDateSort | 2006 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace341342024-01-18T18:38:53Z Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza? Ayalew, W. Jobre, Y. poultry animal diseases vaccination livestock The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of L. leucocephalasupplementation on feed intake, water balance and water economy in highlandsheep fed teff straw as basal diet. Sixteen young male sheep of uniform weightwere assigned in a completely randomized design to the following feedingtreatments: ad libitum teff straw (T1, control), supplemented with 60 (T2), 120 (T3)or 180 (T4) g head-1day-1 air dried leaves of L. leucocephala. Supplementationincreased straw (p<0.01) and total feed (p<0.001) intakes, total water turnover aswell as all avenues of water gains and losses (p<0.001). Compared with the meandaily DMI of 338 g and 633 ml total water turnover rate of sheep in T1, sheep in T4consumed 49% more DM and turned over 54% more water. Drinking water wasthe major avenue of water intake (80%; 511 ml in T1 vs 1108 ml in T4), followed bymetabolic water (15%; 91 ml in T1 vs 201 ml in T4) and preformed water (5%; 31ml in T1 vs 65 ml in T4). From the out put side, water loss was highest throughevaporation (55%; 330 ml in T1 vs 767 ml in T4) followed by urine (27%; 166 ml inT1 vs 389 ml in T4) and faecal (18%; 137 ml in T1 vs 218 in T4) water.Supplementation was accompanied by liberal water use and resulted in low watereconomy; the control sheep (T1), drunk 46% of the water intake of sheep in T4 andthereby saved 54% more water or 60 liters of water/100 sheep which could serve119 additional sheep. The results of the study showed the potential of L.leucocephala as supplement to poor quality roughages and the importance ofliberal water supply along with the supplementary feedingThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of L. leucocephalasupplementation on feed intake, water balance and water economy in highlandsheep fed teff straw as basal diet. Sixteen young male sheep of uniform weightwere assigned in a completely randomized design to the following feedingtreatments: ad libitum teff straw (T1, control), supplemented with 60 (T2), 120 (T3)or 180 (T4) g head-1day-1 air dried leaves of L. leucocephala. Supplementationincreased straw (p<0.01) and total feed (p<0.001) intakes, total water turnover aswell as all avenues of water gains and losses (p<0.001). Compared with the meandaily DMI of 338 g and 633 ml total water turnover rate of sheep in T1, sheep in T4consumed 49% more DM and turned over 54% more water. Drinking water wasthe major avenue of water intake (80%; 511 ml in T1 vs 1108 ml in T4), followed bymetabolic water (15%; 91 ml in T1 vs 201 ml in T4) and preformed water (5%; 31ml in T1 vs 65 ml in T4). From the out put side, water loss was highest throughevaporation (55%; 330 ml in T1 vs 767 ml in T4) followed by urine (27%; 166 ml inT1 vs 389 ml in T4) and faecal (18%; 137 ml in T1 vs 218 in T4) water.Supplementation was accompanied by liberal water use and resulted in low watereconomy; the control sheep (T1), drunk 46% of the water intake of sheep in T4 andthereby saved 54% more water or 60 liters of water/100 sheep which could serve119 additional sheep. The results of the study showed the potential of L.leucocephala as supplement to poor quality roughages and the importance ofliberal water supply along with the supplementary feeding 2006 2013-12-03T05:23:27Z 2013-12-03T05:23:27Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/34134 en Open Access Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production 6(1): 97-100. |
| spellingShingle | poultry animal diseases vaccination livestock Ayalew, W. Jobre, Y. Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza? |
| title | Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza? |
| title_full | Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza? |
| title_fullStr | Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza? |
| title_short | Should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza? |
| title_sort | should vaccination be considered as a conservation measure for backyard chicken threatened with highly pathogenic avian influenza |
| topic | poultry animal diseases vaccination livestock |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/34134 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ayaleww shouldvaccinationbeconsideredasaconservationmeasureforbackyardchickenthreatenedwithhighlypathogenicavianinfluenza AT jobrey shouldvaccinationbeconsideredasaconservationmeasureforbackyardchickenthreatenedwithhighlypathogenicavianinfluenza |