ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE USE OF DIFFERENT ROUGHAGE SOURCES IN SHEEP FEEDLOT DIETS

Authors

  • M. M. V. Romão Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Arapiraca, AL
  • J. S. Ribeiro Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Arapiraca, AL
  • J. F. M. Costa Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Arapiraca, AL
  • L. O. G. R. Lima Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Arapiraca, AL
  • D. M. Lima Júnior Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Arapiraca, AL
  • T. M. A. Mariz Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Arapiraca, AL
  • M. J. M. S. Silva Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Campus Arapiraca, Arapiraca, AL

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17523/bia.v74n3p300

Keywords:

production costs, Tifton 85 hay, forage palm, corn silage, feedlot.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic viability of feedlotting sheep fed diets containing different roughage sources. Twenty-one uncastrated male Santa Ines sheep were assigned to three treatments in a completely randomized design: corn silage (CS); forage palm combined with sugarcane bagasse (SB), and forage palm combined with Tifton 85 hay (TH). Economic viability and productive parameters of the animals were evaluated in each treatment. Animals of treatment TH had higher weight gain, better feed conversion, and lower productions costs (P<0.05). The worst performance and highest productions costs were observed for sheep fed CS (P<0.05). Sheep fed SB did not differ (P>0.05) in productive performance from the other treatments. The costs exceeded the revenue, resulting in negative profit for the diets tested. The high production costs of feedlot finishing using diets based on corn silage or palm combined with Tifton 85 hay or sugarcane bagasse make this activity unfeasible.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2017-11-01

Issue

Section

PRODUCTION SYSTEM AND AGRIBUSINESS

How to Cite

ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE USE OF DIFFERENT ROUGHAGE SOURCES IN SHEEP FEEDLOT DIETS. (2017). Bulletin of Animal Husbandry, 74(3), 300-307. https://doi.org/10.17523/bia.v74n3p300

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 > >>