http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Goetsch, A.L. (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Recent advances in the feeding and nutrition of dairy goats
Arthur Louis Goetsch 아세아·태평양축산학회 2019 Animal Bioscience Vol.32 No.8
There have been recent advances concerning research of the feeding and nutrition of dairy goats in a wide array of areas. Ruminally emitted methane and supplementary feedstuffs to a lesser extent make appreciable contributions to the carbon footprint of dairy goats, with the former affected by type of production system and associated dietary characteristics. Unique behavior of goats necessitates careful consideration of the nature of confinement facilities to achieve optimal production by animals differing in social hierarchy. Physiological conditions such as nutritional needs and perhaps health status may influence diet selection by goats in both grazing and confinement settings. Some research suggests that low concentrations of protein and fat in milk of high-yielding dairy goat breeds could involve the type and nature of dietary ingredients as influencing end products of ruminal fermentation. With the relationship between milk urea nitrogen concentration and efficiency of dietary protein utilization, through future research the measure may be a useful tool for diet formulation as in dairy cattle. Effects of dietary inclusion of sources of fats and oils vary considerably depending on their nature, as is also true for byproduct feedstuffs and conventional ones being substituted for. Supplementation of dairy goats with sources of polyunsaturated fatty acids can affect oxidative stress and various feedstuffs influence antioxidant status; however, research addressing the significance of such changes under practical production settings would be beneficial.
-
Tethering Meat Goats Grazing Forage of High Nutritive Value and Low to Moderate Mass
Patra, A.K.,Puchala, R.,Detweiler, G.,Dawson, L.J.,Animut, G.,Sahlu, T.,Goetsch, A.L. Asian Australasian Association of Animal Productio 2008 Animal Bioscience Vol.21 No.9
Twenty-four yearling Boer$\times$Spanish goats were used in a crossover design experiment to determine effects of tethering on forage selection, intake and digestibility, grazing behavior and energy expenditure (EE) with forage high in nutritive value and low to moderate in mass. Objectives were to determine if tethered goats could be used as a model for study of unrestrained animals and to characterize tethering as a production practice. Four 0.72-ha pastures of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrium) were grazed in December and January. Each pasture hosted six animals, three with free movement and three attached to a 4.11-m tether for access to a circular area of $53.1m^2$. Tethering areas were moved each day. One animal of each treatment and pasture was used to determine forage selection, fecal output or grazing behavior and EE; therefore, there were eight observations per treatment. Mass of forage DM before grazing in Tethered areas averaged 1,280 and 1,130 kg/ha in periods 1 and 2, respectively. The CP concentration in ingesta was greater ((p<0.05) 239 and 209 g/kg; SE = 8.0) and the NDF level was lower (p<0.05) for Free vs. Tethered animals (503 and 538 g/kg; SE = 12.0); in vitro true DM digestion was similar between treatments (0.808 and 0.807 for Free and Tethered, respectively; SE = 0.0096). Intakes of DM (1,013 and 968 g/d; SE = 78.6), NDF (511 and 521 g/d; SE = 39.9) and ME (10.9 and 10.7 MJ/d; SE = 0.90) were similar between treatments, but CP intake was greater (p<0.05) for Free vs. Tethered animals (241 and 203 g/d; SE = 17.2). There were small treatment differences in in vivo apparent digestibility of OM ((p<0.05) 0.780 and 0.814; SE = 0.0049), CP ((p<0.05) 0.800 and 0.817; SE = 0.0067) and NDF ((p<0.09) 0.777 and 0.760 for Free and Tethered, respectively; SE = 0.0078). There were no treatment effects on time spent ruminating or grazing (346 and 347 min/d for Free and Tethered, respectively; SE = 42.5), but EE was considerably greater (p<0.05) for Free vs. Tethered animals (571 and 489 kJ/kg $BW^{0.75}$; SE = 8.9). In conclusion, with forage of high nutritive value and low to moderate in mass, tethering can offer a production advantage over free grazing of less energy used for activity despite similar grazing time. With forage removal considerably less than that available for grazing, effects of tethering on chemical composition of selected forage were small and less than needed to markedly affect digestion. Tethering may offer a means of studying some aspects of grazing by ruminants, but would not seem suitable for energy metabolism.
ScienceON연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
