الفهرس 
Material and methodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 151 |  |  |
| | | from | 151 | | |
Abstract
Twelve lactating bu:f’fa~oes :from ’the herd of -the
Animal Production Research Station at Mehallet Moussa were
used in a feeding ’trial of three tire !ltments in a entch-b ack
design. The three treatments were: (A) E1ephant grass .!l-lib.
alone II (B) Elephant grass !5!-- ~. plus 1 kg concentrate/4 kg
7% FOI4 and (0) Elephant grass !!!-lib. plus 1 kg concent~a”te/
2 kg 7% FeM.
Twodigesti1bility tri,als were conduc”ted to examine the
digestibilit;y of ”tWocutting;s .r Elephant grass when fed to
buffalo-steers alone or mixed. wi-th concentrate (78% Elephant
grassl 22%concentrate on Did basis). The following results
and conclusions were obtained:
A) :Qigestibilitz trials with ste,ers: .
1) The digestion eoe1’ficient of DMt OF, EE, OF and NFJ!:
far the 1st cut of Elephant grass were: 67.52,63.47.72.66,
76.05 and 74.53%, respectivE~ly. The corresponding values for
the 2nd out of Elephant gr aas were: 72.12, 75.18, 62.30•
78.25 and 75.69%. respee’tivt~ly. The digestion coefficients
of DM, CP, EE, CP and BE f,or the 1st; cut of E1ephant grass
plus concentrate mi,x’tu.re (?l:!:22% on DI4 basis) were 58.60,
98.
60.60, 65.89. 65.46 a.r.d 67 ’002%. respeotively. and the digestion
coefficients of DIA, CJ~. EEl,OF and NFE for the 2nd cui;
of Elephant grass plus concentrate miXture were 66.10, 72.1+7t
54.CS. 70.51 and.72.65%, respectively.
2) The feed.ing values of the 1st cut of fresh E1ephllllt
grass as SE, TDo/’.and DCP were 10.26, 1.2.20 and 1.21%,
respectively. The feeding values expressed on DMbasis were
65.15% SE, 66.81%TDNand. 6.6~% DCPfor the 1st cut. The
feeding values of the 2nd cut of fresh Elephant grass as SE,
TDNand DCPwere 9.29. 10.89 and 1.44%, respectively. The
feeding values of 2nd cut on Dl4 basis were 56.}5% SE, 68.39%
TDNand 9.02% DOP. The i~eed.1ngvalues of the respective mixtures
of 1at and 2nd. cuba of Elephant grass wi1ih Concentra:te
were 50.85% SE, 60.59~ ~roN and 7 .?l~ DOPfor the 1st cut
miXtUre and were 55.97% 13E, 65.22%TDNand 10.14% DCPfor the
2nd cut mixture on DMbasis.
,) The B’lerage dslily nitrogen balances were 32. ()4. and
~ .65 gmf or the steers fed the 1st and 2nd cuts of Elephant
grass. respectively, anel were ~.’2 and 39.33 gIn for the
steers fed their respectii.ve ~ ’&1thconcentr~~ 0
B. F.!eding tri,al.s with lactating butfaloe.a.:
1) Averages of diUl,. D14 consumption of Elephant grass
on ”he feeding trial were 14.•32, 1.2.88 and 11.78 kg for buffaloes
receiving the tb:~ee rations A.,B and Ct respectively t
and when expressed as p,ercentage of body weight were 2.62 t
2.36 and 2.17 kg/100 kg body weight for the three rations,
respectively.
2) Av’eragedaily’ milk yield was record.ed as 6.92, 6.95
and 6.92 kg for buffaloes fed the rations A. B and C, respectively.
Averagedaily 7% FCMyield for buffaloes of the 3
rations was 6.64, 6.56 and 6.81 ltg, in the same order. The
difference between ratlons were not significant.
3) The average lnilk fat percentage was 6.72, 6.51 and
6.91% for the three re;epective treatments. There were no
signifiean’t differences between ration A and both ration B
and raiiion 0, but there was a significant difference (P<O~ 01)
between ration B and ra:tion O. The average daily fat yields
were 456, 449 and 474 gm.for -the l’ations A, B and 0t r-eapec-:
tively. The differenc:es be’bWeen~ation B and ration C were
found to be si&!1iflcant (P < 0.0;). In&17Sisfor fat;ty ooid
cOIDposi1iionof bu’t1ier tat showed. that vr~ of total. were:
4.74. 5.12 and 6.95% for the three rati ons and the non VFAA
of total were 95.26, 94.88 Slid 93.05% for the three rations
i.n the same order. I’t was found. ’that the type of ratiion has
no significant effect on the fatty acid composition of milk
tat. Average of saturated FApercentages were 56.98• 55.21
and 57.96%for rations At ’E, and 0, respectively. The corresponding
percentages of unsati’l.lra:ted FA were 43.~t 44.79 and
42.(’4.% for the three ra:tionB in the same order.
4) The average of d.a:lly protein percentages were 4.67 t
4.64 and.4.69% for buffaloe;9 fed the rations A, B and C, respectively.
The differences between ration A and both ration
B and C were not significant t but ’the difference: between r8rti
on B and C was significSllt (P < 0.01.). The average d.aily
protein yields were ~25t 3c~1and 3}1 gmfor buffaloes fed the
rations A, B and C. respeotiively. The d.ifferences between
rations were not signific8J:lt.
5) The average body weights were 552.6 t 551.3 and
548.8 kg for lactating bu:t:faloes on the rations At B and C,
respectively. The dif’fere:nces between rations were not’ significant.
The change of ’bodyweight per -month expr-essed as
percentage of initiQJ. wei~~ was -1.29, -0.32 and -2.50% for
buffaloes fed -the rations A., 13 and. 0, respeotiiveJ.y. The
differences between ration B and C were significant (P <.0.05).
6) Production efficienc~” values expressed as 7% pOM!
kg BE were 0.791, 0.841 and 0.868 for buffaloes fed ’the rations
A, B and. 0, respectively. ’eeel conversion values expressed as
kg BE/kg 7% FCMwere 1.267, 1.189 and 1.T;2 for the three respective
ratione. The differen’oes between rations were not
significant.
,) Eeoaomieal. efficiency values expressed as the ratio
ot money output to money input: were 3.79, 3.51 and 3.17 for
the buffaloes fed the rations At B and 0. respectively. Oost
of feed consumed to produce 1 ’kg milk were 4.7, 5.1 and 5.7
P.T. far 1ihe rations A, B and C. respectivelY.
O. Oonclusions:
According to findings of the present iD.V&strigation, it
could be concluded that:
1) Elephant grass is II palatable forage, well digested
and has high feeding values ’i,hen fed to buffalo-steers and
COWS ei1iher alone or with liluited amounts of concentrabe.
2) Feeding lacta:ting ”buffaloes on Elephant grass alone
coubd cover its main”tenance requi.remen”te plus production
requirements up to 7 kg of 7% FeM. However. supplementing
limited amounts of concentrates are required for buffaloes
producing more than 7 kg or millc. Aidi tion of limited amounts
Of concentrate for those buffaloes of potential productivi~
of ? kg milk did not affect milk yield or fat yield and composition,
though it !m:prl:N8S somewhat the production
efficiency.
3) The inclusion of Elephan:t grass to maximumexten~ in
summer feeding of buffaloes has significantly improved economical
efficienoy and reduced cos~ of milk production
effectively. It 1s highly recommendedto utilize summer
forage crops in feeding daj,.ry oattle 1n Egyp’t to solve the
problems of summer feeds E:’!,hortage and depI’ess1on prod.uctivity
of the dairy animals in summer. l!’U.rthermore the utiliz ation
of’ summer forages in feedi.ng dairy ca’litle and bU.!fa:toes will
save considerable eaounts ’Of eonoe.ntratea.