Printer Friendly

Digestibility and nitrogen balance of lambs fed sugarcane hydrolyzed under different conditions as roughage in the diet/Digestibilidade e balanco de nitrogenio em cordeiros alimentados com cana-de-acucar hidrolisada em diferentes condicoes como volumoso na dieta.

INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane is a tropical roughage widely used in cattle feed. It has several positive aspects: easily cultivated, high content of energy, and high potential of dry matter production per unit of area, especially when forage is scarce. It has, however, few drawbacks: low crude protein content that requires protein supplementation and a need for daily cut due to the high concentration of soluble carbohydrates. The high concentration of soluble carbohydrates makes the environment auspicious for the development of microorganisms that deteriorate the chopped sugarcane. To overcome this issue, hydrolysis using alkalizing treatments, e.g. calcium oxide (CaO), has been promoted on sugarcane, which can also improve the nutritive value of sugarcane by increasing the digestibility of fibers (CARVALHO et al., 2011). The alkalizing agents act in the hydrolysis solubilizing part of the hemicellulose and promoting the expansion of the cellulose molecules. This expansion causes the breaking of the hydrogen bonds between cellulose and hemicellulose, increasing their digestibility. Measurements to qualify food regarding its nutritive value are expressed by the digestibility coefficient which indicates the percentage of each nutrient that an animal is capable of using (BERCHIELLI et al., 2011). Hydrolyzed sugarcane showed an improvement of 6.61% in the in vitro dry matter digestibility, 12.95% for the neutral detergent fiber and 9.28% for the acid detergent fiber (OLIVEIRA, 2010). CaO improves the sugarcane nutritive value and because it is an alkaline additive, it can alter the ruminal environment and change the fermentation pattern, which reduces the metabolism and the nitrogen balance (CARVALHO et al., 2011).

A pH increase due to the application of CaO in sugarcane, followed by a gradual pH decrease due to aerobic exposure of sugarcane occurs during the hydrolysis. This decrease is linear but not desired, because the pH decrease occurs by action of aerobic microorganisms. These microorganisms consume the soluble carbohydrates and cause acidification of sugarcane (RABELO et al., 2011). With the hydrolysis of sugarcane under anaerobic condition, i.e. without exposure to oxygen, theoretically, in the course of time, pH decreases slower than in the hydrolysis under aerobic exposure, which may result in a less favorable environment for the development of aerobic microorganisms. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions on hydrolyzed sugarcane as roughage in the diet, over the digestibility of nutrients and nitrogen balance of lambs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifteen uncastrated Ile de France lambs at a mean body weight of 23.5[+ or -]1.3kg were used. Lambs were housed in individual digestibility pens (1.0[m.sup.2]), with suspended floor and were distributed in a completely randomized design with three treatments and five replicates: in natura sugarcane+concentrate (IN), sugarcane hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under aerobic or anaerobic condition+concentrate (AER or ANA). Chemical composition of the ingredients is shown in table 1 and composition, percentage and chemical analysis of diets are in table 2. Diets were formulated according to NRC (2007) for lamb weight gain of 250g [day.sup.-1], with a roughage to concentrate ratio of 50:50.

Lime consisted of a chemical composition of 93.4% CaO, 0.6% of magnesium oxide and 0.1% phosphorus. The IAC 86-2480 was the variety of sugarcane used. A second cut of sugarcane with nine months of growing, non-defoliated and chopped in particle size of 1.0cm was provided in natura and hydrolyzed under aerobic or anaerobic conditions, depending on the treatment. In natura sugarcane was cut daily and was kept for 2-day ripening, after that, it was chopped and provided to the lambs. Hydrolyzed sugarcane was cut daily, chopped and treated using 0.6% CaO per 100kg of sugarcane. A solution was made according to OLIVEIRA (2010). Sugarcane remained under aerobic and anaerobic conditions for 2-day ripening before being provided to the lambs. The hydrolyzed sugarcane was obtained by chopping and spreading it on a tarp, forming a stack. Calcium oxide solution was poured over the sugarcane, and the stack was revolved for homogenization. The stack of sugarcane hydrolyzed under aerobic condition remained on the tarp. Whereas, sugarcane hydrolyzed under anaerobic condition was stored in screw-top drums, which avoided the contact of oxygen with the hydrolyzed sugarcane.

Lambs received a mixed diet at the feeder, generating 10% of refusals. Diets were offered twice a day, at 8 and 17 hours. The trial lasted 20 days, which 15 days were used for adaptation and five days to total feces and urine collection under mensuration of feed intake (Table 3). Daily amount of excreted feces was collected in plastic bowls and weighed using a digital scale. Urine was collected in beveled plastic buckets with a protecting net avoiding the entry of feces. A total of 100mL of a 20% solution of [H.sub.2]S[O.sub.4] was added in the buckets to prevent the volatilization of the ammonia in the urine.

A total of 10% of the feed refusals, excreted urine and feces were sampled daily. Samples were stored in a -18[degrees]C freezer until the end of collection period for subsequent laboratory analyses. Posteriorly, samples were pre-dried in a forced-ventilation and milled with 1mm grinding plates. The milled samples were used to determine the contents of dry (DM) and organic matter (OM) following AO AC (1990) methodologies. The contents of neutral detergent fiber (NDFap), acid detergent fiber (ADFap) corrected for ash and protein, hemicellulose (HEM), cellulose (CEL) and lignin (LIG) corrected for ash were determined according to VAN SOEST et al. (1991).

Digestibility's of DM, OM, NDFap, ADFap, HEM, CEL and LIG were calculated using the following formula: apparent digestibility, AD (%) = [(nutrient intake (g)--nutrient excretion (g)) / nutrient intake (g)] * 100. The nitrogen balance (NB) was expressed in g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1], and was calculated using the following equations (N = Nitrogen): NB or [N.sub.retained] = [N.sub.intake] - ([N.sub.feces] + [N.sub.urine]) [N.sub.absorbed] = [N.sub.intake] [N.sub.feces] and [N.sub.intake] = [N.sub.offered] - [N.sub.refusal]

A completely randomized experimental design with three treatments and five replicates were used. Data were subjected to analysis of variance by PROC GLM using the statistical software (SAS, 2001), at 5% significance level. When significant differences were detected, means were tested by Tukey HSD range test at 5% significance level.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The hydrolysis of sugarcane provides a better use of the fibers by the ruminal microorganisms. In this study, it was assessed the influence of the AER and ANA conditions on the sugarcane hydrolysis regarding digestibility parameters and the NB.

Lambs fed AER and ANA did not have significantly higher (P>0.05) digestibility of DM, ADFap, and CEL compared to lambs fed IN (Table 4). No difference for CEL was observed, however a higher digestibility of LIG was observed for lambs fed with AER than lambs fed IN. ADFap, which is constituted by cellulose and lignin, showed lower lignin than cellulose content on sugarcane, therefore the difference observed for LIG digestibility was not sufficient to influence the digestibility of ADFap. Lignin, which digestibility is either null or very low (MARAIS, 2000), is a factor that can restrict the digestion of fiber carbohydrates (e.g. hemicellulose) because they are chemically bound. SUNDSTOL & OWEN (1984) stressed that the lignin fraction can be solubilized by a high concentration of sodium hydroxide. Cleavage of lignin's phenyl propane bonds forming free phenolic groups can occur due to the high temperature during hydrolysis. Lambs fed with AER had a higher LIG digestibility, which could have been caused by the temperature during hydrolysis. The temperature for IN was 19.66[degrees]C, whereas for AER was 29.90[degrees]C and for ANA was 21.90[degrees]C.

Lambs fed IN had lower digestibility (P<0.05) of OM and NDFap than lambs fed ANA. There was an increase on digestibility of 38.57% for NDFap and of 15.76% for OM for lambs fed ANA compared to lambs fed IN. The OM of a feed is the complement of its non-organic portion, i.e. mineral matter (DETMANN et al., 2012). Therefore, the higher NDFap, HEM and LIG digestibility's justify the higher OM digestibility for the ANA than the IN. For HEM digestibility, lambs fed AER (66.41%) and ANA (72.09%) had higher values than lambs fed IN (53.80%). HEM acts as a bonding agent between CEL and LIG, therefore HEM was partly solubilized and the bonds were broken between CEL/HEM/LIG. The HEM digestibility had a higher influence than LIG digestibility on NDFap digestibility. This was observed when there was a higher digestibility of NDFap for the ANA than IN even when ANA only showed difference for HEM digestibility; the AER showed higher LIG and HEM digestibility's but no difference between NDFap.

FREITAS et al. (2008) who assessed nutrient digestibility in lambs found an increase of 18% and 22% for NDFap digestibility of hydrolyzed sugarcane (0.5% and 0.9% calcium hydroxide, respectively) compared to IN. Whereas, in the current study, there was an increase of 25% and 38% for NDFap digestibility of AER and ANA, respectively, compared to IN. This variation in the effectiveness of NDFap digestibility can be explained by the variation in the chemical composition of the lime used by the aforementioned authors. Their lime had a minimum of 54% CaO, whereas the lime used in our study had a minimum of 93% CaO.

There was no difference (P>0.05) for N intake (36.46g [animal.sup.1] [day.sup.-1] and 3.43g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]), N excreted in the feces (7.92[g.sup.1] [animal.sup.1] [day.sup.-1] and 0.74g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]) and in the urine (2.56g [animal.sup.1] [day.sup.-1] and 0.24g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]). N loss via feces and urine correspond to 22.01% and 7.14% of N intake, totalizing 29.15% (Table 5). MORENO et al. (2010) did not find effect on the N intake (27.26g [day.sup.-1]), N excreted in the feces (12.57g [day.sup.-1]) and in the urine (6.37g [day.sup.-1]) in lambs fed corn or sugarcane silage in different proportions. CARVALHO et al. (2010) and CARVALHO et al. (2011) however, assessing the NB of goats and heifers fed diets containing IN sugarcane or hydrolyzed using CaO in different levels (zero, 0.75%, 1.50% and 2.25%), found a negative effect for N intake for heifers, whereas it was a crescent linear effect for goats fed hydrolyzed sugarcane. They have justified the effects by a possible relation in the changes of the fermentative patterns by the use of alkaline additive CaO. In the current study, the CaO level using 0.6% might have not been sufficient to change the ruminal environment or the rumen fermentative patterns and, consequently change the N intake.

ZEOULA et al. (2006) studying diets with different contents of rumen degradable protein (RDP) and ground corn (slow ruminal degradability) as starch source in sheep found values of 56.04% for total nitrogen loss (feces and urine). MORENO et al. (2010) found values of 68.33% for total nitrogen loss (feces and urine), whereas we found 29.15%. CARVALHO et al. (2010), studying goats fed sugarcane hydrolyzed using CaO (zero, 0.75%, 1.5% and 2.25%), found that 75.79% of the N intake was lost in the feces and urine.

A higher (P<0.05) nitrogen absorption was observed for lambs fed ANA (3.00g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]) than for lambs fed IN (2.22g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]). Non-ionized ammonia (NH3) is absorbed by the ruminal walls but not on its ionized form (NH4+). This happens because the decrease of ruminal pH favors the ammonia ionization and reduces its absorption (BERCHIELLI et al., 2011). The supply of sugarcane hydrolyzed using CaO could have changed the ruminal environment resulting in a higher pH, therefore increasing the N absorption compared to lambs fed IN. AER did not show statistical difference in N absorption (2.82g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]) but it showed a tendency of a higher N absorption compared to IN (2.22g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]).

Non-protein nitrogen (NPN) from the diet is rapidly available for the ruminal microorganisms and converted into microbial protein. A portion of the NPN is absorbed as non-ionized ammonia (NH3) and sent to the liver, via enterohepatic circulation, where ammonia is converted into urea. The urea can be either recycled via blood stream to the saliva, via diffusion to the rumen (N absorbed) or it can be excreted in the urine. The N recycling process starts when the NH3 is absorbed by the rumen walls (BERCHIELLI et al., 2011). There is a possibility that there was a high rate of N recycled in the current study, once the N absorption (28.54g [day.sup.-1]) was higher than other studies, e.g. 14.69 and 18.25g [day.sup.-1] found by MORENO et al. (2010) and CARVALHO et al. (2010), respectively. Moreover, the N excreted in the urine was lower (2.56g [day.sup.-1]) compared to 11.30, 6.37 and 12.28g [day.sup.-1] found by ZEOULA et al. (2006), MORENO et al. (2010) and CARVALHO et al. (2010).

The N excretion in the urine (7.14% of N intake) was lower than the N excretion in the feces (22.01%) in the current study. ZEOULA et al. (2003), used fed diets containing different levels of cassava by-product meal (fast ruminal degradation) replacing corn (slow ruminal degradation) and soybean meal as a protein source, also found lower N excretion in the urine (30.90%) than the N excretion in the feces (35.2%). The soybean meal as source of protein N and urea as source of non-protein N, besides the use of sugarcane as source of readily fermentable carbohydrate in the rumen might have influenced the synchronization with the N released, increasing the N retained (NB) (29,46g [day.sup.-1] and 2,78g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]) by a higher N recycling. According to ZEOULA et al. (2006) this available energy generated a 21% increase of N retained because it seemed to have provided a better synchronization of the N released with the readily available energy of the rumen.

We found NB values of 25.97g [day.sup.-1] and 2.44g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1] which were higher than values found by MORENO et al. (2010) who reported 8.55g [day.sup.-1] and 0.67g [kg.sup.-0.75] [day.sup.-1]. This difference is due to the higher N intake and a lower N excreted in feces and urine obtained in our study. The sugarcane hydrolysis using CaO (alkaline additive) could have changed the fermentative ruminal environment and reduced the nitrogen balance (CARVALHO et al., 2011); our results, however, show that the 0.6% CaO content used in the sugarcane hydrolysis did not have a negative effect in the ruminal degradation. Conversely, the readily available carbohydrates in the rumen coming from the sugarcane resulted in a higher N retained (NB).

CONCLUSION

As roughage, the sugarcane hydrolyzed under anaerobic condition in the lamb diet, optimizes the NB and is more efficient to improve the digestibility of NDFap, HEM and OM compared to in natura sugarcane. Whereas sugarcane hydrolyzed under aerobic condition was as efficient as sugarcane hydrolyzed under anaerobic condition and in natura.

ETHICS AND BIOSECURITY COMMITTEE

This research is in accordance with the Ethical Principles in Animal Experimentation, and was approved by Committee of the Use of Animals, protocol number 011855/12.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20131679

REFERENCES

ASSOCIATION OF OFFICIAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS (AOAC). Official methods of analysis. 15.ed. Washington, D.C., 1990. 1298p.

BERCHIELLI, T.T. et al. Nutricao de ruminantes. Jaboticabal: Funep, 2011. 616p.

CARVALHO, G.G.P. et al. Metabolismo de nitrogenio em novilhas alimentadas com dietas contendo cana-de-acucar tratado com oxido de calcio. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.40, n.3, p.622-629, jul. 2011. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S151635982011000300022>. Accessed: 13 ago. 2013. doi: 10.1590/ S1516-35982011000300022.

CARVALHO, G.G.P. et al. Balanco de nitrogenio, concentracao de ureia e sintese de proteina microbiana em caprinos alimentados com dietas contendo cana-de-acucar tratada com oxido de calcio. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.39, n.10, p.2253-2261, out. 2010. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S151635982010001000022>. Accessed: 13 ago. 2013. doi: 10.1590/ S1516-35982010001000022.

DETMANN, E. et al. Metodos para analise de alimentos. Visconde do Rio Branco: Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia de Ciencia Animal, 2012. 214p.

FREITAS, A.W.P. et al. Consumo de nutrientes e desempenho de ovinos alimentados com dietas a base de cana-de-acucar hidrolisada. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, v.43. n.11, p.1569-1574, nov. 2008. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100204X2008001100016>. Accessed: 10 jun. 2013. doi: 10.1590/ S0100-204X2008001100016.

MARAIS, P.J. Use of markers. In: D'MELLO, J.P.F. Farm animal metabolism and nutrition: critical reviews. Wallingford: CAB International, 2000. p.255-277.

MORENO, G.M.B. et al. Desempenho, digestibilidade e balanco de nitrogenio em cordeiros alimentados com silagem de milho ou cana-de-acucar e dois niveis de concentrado. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.39, n.4, p.853-860, abr. 2010. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010000400022>. Accessed: 03 mar. 2013. doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982010000400022.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (RNC). Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids. 6.ed. Washington, DC: National Academy, 2007. 384p.

OLIVEIRA, M.D.S. Cana-de-acucar hidrolisada na alimentacao de bovinos. Jaboticabal: Funep, 2010. 115p.

RABELO, C.H.S. et al. Estabilidade aerobia de cana-de-acucar in natura hidrolisada com cal virgem. Ciencia Animal Brasileira, v. 12, n.2, p.257-265, abr./jun. 2011.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTEMS (SAS). 2001. User's guide: Statistics, Version 9.0 Cary, 2002.

SUNDSTOL, J.; OWEN, E. Straw and other fibrous by-products as feed. Elsevier, 1984. 630p.

VAN SOEST, P.J. et al. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, v. 74, n.12, p.3583-3597, oct. 1991.

ZEOULA, L.M. et al. Substituicao do milho pela farinha de varredura de mandioca (Manihot esculenta crantz) em racoes de ovinos: consumo, digestibilidade, balancos de nitrogenio e energia e paramentros ruminais. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.32, n.2, p.491-502, fev. 2003.

ZEOULA, L.M. et al. Digestibilidade e balanco de nitrogenio de racoes com diferentes teores de proteina degradavel no rumen e milho moido como fonte de amido em ovinos. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.35, n.5, p.2179-2186, mai. 2006.

Viviane Endo (I) * Americo Garcia da Silva Sobrinho (I) Fabiana Alves de Almeida (I) Natalia Ludmila Lins Lima (I) Nivea Maria Brancacci Lopes Zeola (I)

(I) Faculdade de Ciencias Agrarias e Veterinarias, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), 14884-900, Jaboticabal, SP, Brasil. E-mail: endo_vica@hotmail.com. *Corresponding author.

Received 12.20.13 Approved 06.18.14 Returned by the author 09.22.14 CR-2013-1679.R2
Table 1--Chemical and crude energy composition of the ingredients
of the experimental diets (expressed on DM).

                                              --Sugarcane--

                                      --Hydrolyzedusing CaO (0.6%)--

Chemical composition (on DM)          In natura   Aerobic   Anaerobic

Dry matter (%)                          33.75      30.64      30.71
Organic matter (%)                      32.01      27.06      26.78
Mineral matter (%)                      1.74       3.58       3.93
Crude protein (%)                       1.51       1.49       1.46
Ether extract (%)                       1.85       1.45       1.27
Lignin (%)                              5.63       5.19       5.53
Neutral detergent fiber (%) (1)         41.09      37.54      37.67
Neutral detergent acid (%) (2)          22.90      20.10      20.11
Hemicellulose (%)                       18.19      17.44      17.56
Cellulose (%)                           17.27      14.91      0.76
Total carbohydrates (%) (3)             95.87      92.72      94.29
Non-fibrous carbohydrates (%) (4)       53.81      55.94      55.67
Crude energy (Mcal [kg.sup.-1])         3.88       3.70       3.82

Chemical composition (on DM)          Soybean meal   Ground corn

Dry matter (%)                           90.18          89.80
Organic matter (%)                       83.29          87.39
Mineral matter (%)                       6.89           2.41
Crude protein (%)                        47.50          10.48
Ether extract (%)                        1.75           6.85
Lignin (%)                               7.75           2.51
Neutral detergent fiber (%) (1)          20.89          10.11
Neutral detergent acid (%) (2)           8.51           2.70
Hemicellulose (%)                        12.38          7.41
Cellulose (%)                            7.60           0.19
Total carbohydrates (%) (3)              43.87          80.25
Non-fibrous carbohydrates (%) (4)        22.97          70.15
Crude energy (Mcal [kg.sup.-1])          4.56           4.37

(1) Neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein.
(2) Acid detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein. (3) Total
carbohydrates = 100-(%CP+%EE+%MM). (4) Non-fiber
carbohydrates = 100-(%NDFap+%CP+%EE+%MM).

Source: elaboration of the authors.

Table 2--Ingredients percentage, chemical and crude energy
composition of the experimental diets (expressed in DM).

                                      --Treatment--

Ingredients (%)                    IN      AER     ANA

Sugarcane                          49.93   52.69   50.99
Urea                               1.27    1.20    1.21
Ground corn                        8.09    7.64    7.76
Soybean meal                       37.97   35.87   36.41
Sodium chloride                    0.33    0.31    0.31
Limestone                          1.15    1.08    1.10
Phosphate dicalcium                0.80    0.76    0.77
Mineral mixture (1)                0.47    0.44    0.45

                                        --Chemical
                                   composition (on DM)--

Dry matter (%)                     50.07   47.31   48.01
Crude protein (%)                  22.73   21.48   21.80
Mineral matter (%)                 6.24    6.96    7.19
Neutral detergent fiber (%) (2)    27.53   28.15   29.79
Acid detergent fiber (%) (3)       13.17   13.56   14.92
Hemicellulose (%)                  14.36   14.59   14.87
Cellulose (%)                      7.48    7.85    9.03
Lignin (%)                         5.69    5.71    5.89
Ether extrate (%)                  2.14    1.92    1.83
Total carbohydrates (%) (4)        68.89   68.72   69.18
Non-fiber carbohydrates (%) (5)    41.36   40.57   39.39
Crude energy (Mcal [kg.sup.-1])    4.02    3.92    3.99

IN = in natura sugarcane + concentrate, AER = sugarcane hydrolyzed
using 0.6% CaO under aerobic conditions + concentrate, ANA =
sugarcane hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under anaerobic conditions +
concentrate. (1) Mineral mixture: zinc 1600mg, copper 300mg,
manganese 1500mg, iron 1100mg, cobalt 10mg, iodine 27mg, selenium
22mg. (2) Neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein.
(3) Acid detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein. (4) Total
carbohydrates = 100-(%CP+%EE+%MM). (5) Non-fiber carbohydrates =
100- (%NDFap+%CP+%EE+%MM).

Source: elaboration of the authors.

Table 3--Nutrient intake based on dry matter of lambs fed diets
containing sugarcane either in natura or hydrolyzed under
aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

                                    --Treatment--

                              IN                      AER

Body Weight (kg)     23.18 [+ or -] 0.47     23.69 [+ or -] 0.87
Weight gain (kg)     0.264 [+ or -] 0.14     0.276 [+ or -] 0.08

                     --Nutrient intake (g [day.sup.-1])--

Dry matter           952,20 [+ or -] 0.02    988,00 [+ or -] 0.04
Organic matter       800.91 [+ or -] 42.17   848.16 [+ or -] 74.47
Neutral detergent    242.29 [+ or -] 16.25   257.37 [+ or -] 22.44
  fiber (1)
Acid detergent       132.83 [+ or -] 9.70    120.56 [+ or -] 10.70
  fiber (2)
Lignin               88.89 [+ or -] 6,25     91.96 [+ or -] 8,48
Hemicellulose        129.13 [+ or -] 8.12    136.05 [+ or -] 11.68
Cellulose            96.06 [+ or -] 7.03     83.56 [+ or -] 6.88

                        --Treatment--

                              ANA            Pr > F

Body Weight (kg)     23.68 [+ or -] 0.27       ns
Weight gain (kg)     0.140 [+ or -] 0.09       ns

Dry matter           1014,00 [+ or -] 0.02     ns
Organic matter       872.84 [+ or -] 39.36     ns
Neutral detergent    294.09 [+ or -] 11.91     ns
  fiber (1)
Acid detergent       126.69 [+ or -] 4.10      ns
  fiber (2)
Lignin               103.43 [+ or -] 3.69      ns
Hemicellulose        146.20 [+ or -] 7.40      ns
Cellulose            86.39 [+ or -] 3.29       ns

IN: in natura sugarcane + concentrate, AER: sugarcane
hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under aerobic condition + concentrate,
ANA: sugarcane hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under anaerobic
condition + concentrate. Tukey test (* = P<0.05, ns = non-signicance).
(1) Neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein. (2) Acid
detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein.

Source: authors' elaboration.

Table 4--Digestibility's of: dry matter (DDM), organic matter (DOM),
neutral detergent fiber corrected for ash and protein (DNDFap), acid
detergent fiber (DADF), hemicelluloses (DHEM), cellulose (DCEL)
lignin (DLIG), total carbohydrates (DTC) and non-fiber carbohydrates
(DNFC) for lambs fed in natura sugarcane or sugarcane hydrolyzed
under aerobic or anaerobic conditions.

                                   --Treatment--

Variable (g                 IN                        AER
[animal.sup.-1]
[day.sup.-1]

DDM                 67.90 [+ or -] 5.53       75.87 [+ or -] 1.60
DOM               73.76 (b) [+ or -] 4.09   81.58 (ab) [+ or -] 1.23
DNDFap            41.17 (b) [+ or -] 8.64   51.70 (ab) [+ or -] 2.55
DADFap              39.31 [+ or -] 3.13        35.08[+ or -]3.80
DHEM              53.80 (b) [+ or -] 4.08   66.41 (a) [+ or -] 2.70
DCEL                68.13 [+ or -] 7.02       73.78 [+ or -] 2.71
DLIG              23.28 (b) [+ or -] 5.49   38.40 (a) [+ or -] 3.11

                       --Treatment--

Variable (g                 ANA              Pr > F
[animal.sup.-1]
[day.sup.-1]

DDM                 77.84 [+ or -] 2.38        ns
DOM               85.39 (a) [+ or -] 2.52      *
DNDFap            57.05 (a) [+ or -] 3.79      *
DADFap              32.40 [+ or -] 6.20        ns
DHEM              72.09 (a) [+ or -] 2.90      *
DCEL                71.18 [+ or -] 3.35        ns
DLIG              34.20 (ab) [+ or -] 2.63     *

IN = in natura sugarcane + concentrate, AER = sugarcane
hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under aerobic conditions + concentrate,
ANA = sugarcane hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under anaerobic
conditions + concentrate. Tukey test
(* = P<0.05, ns = non-significance).

Source: authors' elaboration.

Table 5--Nitrogen (N) intake, N excreted in the feces,
N excreted in the urine and N balance (NB), for lambs fed
in natura sugarcane or sugarcane hydrolyzed under aerobic
or anaerobic conditions.
                                       --Treatment--

Variable                                    IN

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      33.06 [+ or -] 1.40
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        3.10 [+ or -] 0.12

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      9.32 [+ or -] 1.82
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        0.88 [+ or -] 0.17
% N intake                          27.97 [+ or -] 4.85

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      2.36 [+ or -] 0.31
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        0.21 [+ or -] 0.02
% N intake                          7.20 [+ or -] 1.08

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      23.75 [+ or -] 1.74
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        2.22 (b) [+ or -] 0.15
%N intake                           72.02 [+ or -] 4.85

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      21.39 (b) [+ or -] 1.70
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        2.00 (b) [+ or -] 0.15
% N intake                          64.82 [+ or -] 4.54
N retained/N intake                 0.64 [+ or -] 0.04
N retained/N absorbed               0.90 [+ or -] 0.01

                                       --Treatment--

Variable                                    AER

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      37.47 [+ or -] 3.00
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        3.50 [+ or -] 0.27

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      7.27 [+ or -] 0.71
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        0.68 [+ or -] 0.06
% N intake                          19.58 [+ or -] 1.68

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      3.13 [+ or -] 0.08
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        0.29 [+ or -] 0.007
% N intake                          8.48 [+ or -] 0.42

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      30.20 [+ or -] 2.75
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        2.82 (ab) [+ or -] 0.25
%N intake                           80.42 [+ or -] 1.68

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      27.06 (ab) [+ or -] 2.68
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        2.53 (ab) [+ or -] 0.24
% N intake                          71.94 [+ or -] 1.85
N retained/N intake                 0.72 [+ or -] 0.01
N retained/N absorbed               0.89 [+ or -] 0.006

Variable                                    ANA               Pr > F

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      38.84 [+ or -] 1.90         ns
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        3.68 [+ or -] 0.19          ns

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      7.18 [+ or -] 0.63          ns
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        0.68 [+ or -] 0.06          ns
% N intake                          18.50 [+ or -] 1.30         ns

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      2.20 [+ or -] 0.27          ns
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        0.21 [+ or -] 0.02          ns
% N intake                          5.74 [+ or -] 0.76          ns

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      31.67 [+ or -] 1.62         ns
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        3.00 (a) [+ or -] 0.16      *
%N intake                           81.50 [+ or -] 1.31         ns

g [animal.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]      29.46 (a) [+ or -] 1.66     *
g [kg.sup.-075] [day.sup.-1]        2.78 (a) [+ or -] 0.16      *
% N intake                          75.75 [+ or -] 1.47         ns
N retained/N intake                 0.75 [+ or -] 0.01          ns
N retained/N absorbed               0.92 [+ or -] 0.009         ns

IN = in natura sugarcane + concentrate, AER = sugarcane
hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under aerobic condition + concentrate,
ANA = sugarcane hydrolyzed using 0.6% CaO under anaerobic
condition + concentrate. Tuket test
(* = P<0.05, ns = non-significance).

Source: elaboration of the authors.
COPYRIGHT 2015 Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Endo, Viviane; Sobrinho, Americo Garcia da Silva; de Almeida, Fabiana Alves; Lima, Natalia Ludmila L
Publication:Ciencia Rural
Date:Feb 1, 2015
Words:4866
Previous Article:Sorghum cultivars of different purposes silage/Cultivares de sorgo para silagem de diferentes propositos.
Next Article:Volatile profile of yellow passion fruit juice by static headspace and solid phase microextraction techniques/Perfil volatil do suco do...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |