Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T19:45:08.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of undried and dried fish-protein hydrolysate as a protein source for calf milk replacers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. M. Petchey ,
J. B. Owen ,
I. M. Mackie ,
A. H. Ritchie  and
E. R. Ørskov
A. M. Petchey
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen
J. B. Owen
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, 581 King Street, Aberdeen
I. M. Mackie
Affiliation:
Torry Research Station, Abbey Road, Aberdeen
A. H. Ritchie
Affiliation:
Torry Research Station, Abbey Road, Aberdeen
E. R. Ørskov
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksbum, Aberdeen
Get access

Abstract

Milk replacers in which skim milk protein (SMP) was replaced in various proportions by undried or dried fish protein hydrolysate (FPH) were offered twice daily to British Friesian male calves. Various proportions of fish protein and milk protein in the diets were obtained by mixing replacer made from SMP with replacers made from undried and dried FPH respectively. The ratios were: 100 FPH, 0 SMP; 67 FPH, 33 SMP; 33 FPH, 67 SMP; and 0 FPH, 100 SMP. Calves were offered the milk replacers only to a maximum of 5 1 per day until 28 days when concentrates and hay were offered ad libitum. The calves were weaned after 42 days. Feed intake and live-weight gain were recorded for 84 days.

There was a marked decrease in performance to weaning when the milk replacer contained two-thirds or more of the FPH. The FPH-fed calves had lower hay intakes than those fed milk only. Treatment differences in post-weaning live-weight gain reflected mainly differences in concentrate intake. There was no significant difference in live-weight gain nor food efficiency for calves fed either undried or dried FPH in any period to 84 days. The number of treatments for scour was similar for the two groups. However, the calves fed dried FPH had a lower dry-matter intake in the post-weaning period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 1979 , pp. 191 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bender, A. E. 1972. Processing damage to protein food. J. Fd. Technol. 7: 239–250.Google Scholar
Dodsworth, T. L., Owen, J. B., Mackie, I. M., Ritchie, A. and Ørskov, E. R. 1977. Fish-protein hydrolysate as a substitute for milk protein in calf feeding. Anim. Prod. 25: 19–26.Google Scholar
Gorrill, A. D. L., Nicholson, J. W. G., Larmond, Elizabeth and Power, H. E. 1975. Comparison of fish protein sources and milk by-products in milk replacers for calves. Can. J. Anim. Set 55: 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soliman, H. S. 1977. Replacement of milk protein carbohydrate and fat in lamb milk substitutes. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Soliman, H. S., Ørskov, E. R., Mackie, I. M. and Dodsworth, T. L. 1976. Utilization of fish-protein hydrolysate for artificial rearing of lambs. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35: 91A–92A.Google ScholarPubMed