IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i10p959-d649163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls on Reproductive Performance of Yearly Ewes Fed with Pelleted Complete Diets

Author

Listed:
  • Abdualrahman S. Alharthi

    (Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Mohsen M. Alobre

    (Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Mutassim M. Abdelrahman

    (Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Hani H. Al-Baadani

    (Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Ayman A. Swelum

    (Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Rifat Ullah Khan

    (College of Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan)

  • Ibrahim A. Alhidary

    (Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

In this study, 84 pregnant ewes were used and randomly distributed to one of four treatments, as follows: C (control), total mixed ration (TMR) +12% SFH (S12), TMR +20% SFH (S20), and TMR +28% SFH (S28). Treatments had a significant ( p < 0.05) effect on the daily feed intake (DFI) of the ewes during the late gestation (30 d prepartum) and post-partum period, with the S12 and S20 groups having lower feed intake (35; 60%) than the C and S28 group. The DFI was significantly ( p < 0.05) low during late gestation in comparable with other periods. The results revealed that body weight (BW) at late gestation was significantly ( p < 0.05) higher than the BW at 60-days postpartum and during the mating period. Body condition score (BCS) was significantly ( p < 0.05) higher during late gestation in comparison with other periods. There was no significant effect of different levels of SFH on reproductive parameters except S/C, which was significantly higher in the S20 than other groups. Serum glucose level was significantly ( p < 0.05) higher in the S20 group than the C, S12, and S28 groups during 30 days postpartum. S20 and S28 groups showed a significant ( p < 0.05) increase in glucose levels at parturition in comparison with other reproductive periods. At late gestation, a significantly ( p < 0.01) higher concentration of blood NEFA was reported for ewes from the C group compared with other groups. Furthermore, significantly lower ( p < 0.05) NEFA levels at parturition were found for ewes from the S20 group compared with the S12 group. In conclusion, TMR is not preferable to be used alone in the late gestation period. Sunflower hull can be used as a cheap source of fiber in TMR without adverse effects on health or the reproductive traits of ewes. The increasing level of sunflower hull up to 28% can affect fertility and increase the number of services per conception, probably due to its high content of lignin (phytoestrogen).

Suggested Citation

  • Abdualrahman S. Alharthi & Mohsen M. Alobre & Mutassim M. Abdelrahman & Hani H. Al-Baadani & Ayman A. Swelum & Rifat Ullah Khan & Ibrahim A. Alhidary, 2021. "The Effects of Different Levels of Sunflower Hulls on Reproductive Performance of Yearly Ewes Fed with Pelleted Complete Diets," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-9, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:10:p:959-:d:649163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/10/959/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/10/959/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. F. M. Reed, 2016. "Fertility of Herbivores Consuming Phytoestrogen-containing Medicago and Trifolium Species," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-29, July.
    2. Wirsenius, Stefan & Azar, Christian & Berndes, Göran, 2010. "How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 621-638, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ionică Nechifor & Marian Alexandru Florea & Răzvan-Mihail Radu-Rusu & Constantin Pascal, 2022. "Influence of Supplemental Feeding on Body Condition Score and Reproductive Performance Dynamics in Botosani Karakul Sheep," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Batidzirai, B. & Smeets, E.M.W. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2012. "Harmonising bioenergy resource potentials—Methodological lessons from review of state of the art bioenergy potential assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(9), pages 6598-6630.
    2. David Bryngelsson & Fredrik Hedenus & Daniel J. A. Johansson & Christian Azar & Stefan Wirsenius, 2017. "How Do Dietary Choices Influence the Energy-System Cost of Stabilizing the Climate?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Weizhong Su & Gaobin Ye, 2014. "Differences of Soil Fertility in Farmland Occupation and Supplement Areas in the Taihu Lake Watershed during 1985–2010," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Emiko Fukase & Will Martin, 2016. "Who Will Feed China in the 21st Century? Income Growth and Food Demand and Supply in China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 3-23, February.
    5. Bosire, Caroline K. & Krol, Maarten S. & Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Ogutu, Joseph O. & de Leeuw, Jan & Lannerstad, Mats & Hoekstra, Arjen Y., 2016. "Meat and milk production scenarios and the associated land footprint in Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 64-75.
    6. Koch, Max & Buch-Hansen, Hubert & Fritz, Martin, 2017. "Shifting Priorities in Degrowth Research: An Argument for the Centrality of Human Needs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 74-81.
    7. Soler, Louis-Georges & Thomas, Alban, 2020. "Is there a win-win scenario with both limited beef production and reduced beef consumption?," TSE Working Papers 20-1067, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. Stefan Hellstrand, 2013. "Animal production in a sustainable agriculture," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 999-1036, August.
    9. de Ruiter, Henri & Kastner, Thomas & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2014. "European dietary patterns and their associated land use: Variation between and within countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 158-166.
    10. Benjamin Leon Bodirsky & Susanne Rolinski & Anne Biewald & Isabelle Weindl & Alexander Popp & Hermann Lotze-Campen, 2015. "Global Food Demand Scenarios for the 21st Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-27, November.
    11. Dumas, Patrice & Wirsenius, Stefan & Searchinger, Tim & Andrieu, Nadine & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien, 2022. "Options to achieve net-zero emissions from agriculture and land use changes in Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12385, Inter-American Development Bank.
    12. Rasadhika Sharma & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Ulrike Grote, 2018. "Changing Consumption Patterns—Drivers and the Environmental Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    13. Peters, Christian J. & Picardy, Jamie A. & Darrouzet-Nardi, Amelia & Griffin, Timothy S., 2014. "Feed conversions, ration compositions, and land use efficiencies of major livestock products in U.S. agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 35-43.
    14. Forte, Annachiara & Zucaro, Amalia & De Vico, Gionata & Fierro, Angelo, 2016. "Carbon footprint of heliciculture: A case study from an Italian experimental farm," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 99-111.
    15. Pariz, Cristiano M. & Costa, Ciniro & Crusciol, Carlos A.C. & Castilhos, André M. & Meirelles, Paulo R.L. & Roça, Roberto O. & Pinheiro, Rafael S.B. & Kuwahara, Frank A. & Martello, Jorge M. & Cavasan, 2017. "Lamb production responses to grass grazing in a companion crop system with corn silage and oversowing of yellow oat in a tropical region," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Maria-Jose Ibarrola-Rivas & Sanderine Nonhebel, 2019. "Does Mexico Have Enough Land to Fulfill Future Needs for the Consumption of Animal Products?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Maryia Mandryk & Jonathan Doelman & Elke Stehfest, 2015. "Assessment of global land availability: land supply for agriculture," FOODSECURE Technical papers 7, LEI Wageningen UR.
    18. Iain J. Gordon & F. Javier Pérez-Barbería & Adrian D. Manning, 2021. "Rewilding Lite: Using Traditional Domestic Livestock to Achieve Rewilding Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Rhys Manners & Irene Blanco-Gutiérrez & Consuelo Varela-Ortega & Ana M. Tarquis, 2020. "Transitioning European Protein-Rich Food Consumption and Production towards More Sustainable Patterns—Strategies and Policy Suggestions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    20. Kinda, Somlanare Romuald & Kere, Nazindigouba Eric & Yogo, Thierry Urbain & Simpasa, Musonda Anthony, 2022. "Do land rushes really improve food security in Sub-Saharan Africa?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:10:p:959-:d:649163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.